Are the Delhi parliamentary secretaries holding an office of profit ?

The President of India has recently rejected the bill proposed by the Delhi Govt. for excluding the post of parliamentary secretaries of the Delhi Govt. from being treated as an office of profit.

In connection with the possible disqualification of 21 AAP MLAs, the question arises what is an office of profit.

 I am not going into the question as to whether the President's order is correct or  not, as I do not have the full facts. I am only dealing with the legal position.
 In its elaborate judgment in Shibu Soren.vs. Dayanand Sahay, 2001 ( see online ), the Supreme Court has explained what is an office of profit.
 The Court referred to the earlier decision in Shivamurthy Swami vs. Agadi ( see online ) and said that payment of ' out of pocket ' expenses would not make it an office of profit.

 In Shibu Soren's case, the appellant Shibu Soren was admittedly holding an office of Chairman of the Interim JAA Council when he filed his nomination paper for election to Rajya Sabha. He belonged to the Scheduled Tribes and had been nominated as Chairman of the Interim JAA Council, by the State Government. He held his office 'at the pleasure' of the State Government. The question was whether the post of Chairman was an office of profit.
As Chairman of the Interim Council he was receiving:

(1) An honorarium of Rs.1750/- per month;

(2) Daily allowance at the rate of Rs.150/- per day for the period spent outside the headquarter besides travelling expenses as prescribed;

 (3) Daily allowance at the rate of Rs.120/- per day for attending meetings of the interim council;

(4) Furnished rent free accommodation (quarters) and

(5) A car with Driver That receipt of daily allowance at the rate of Rs.150/- per day for the period spent outside his headquarters and Rs.120/- per day for attending meetings of the Interim JAA Council by the appellant, is in its very nature only compensatory allowance,

 The Supreme Court held that items (2) and (3) were only received as out of pocket expenses, so those by themselves would not make it an office of profit.

 However, the Court went on to say, items (1), (4) and (5) were not out of pocket expenses, and so it was an office of profit.

In Jaya Bachchan vs. Union of India, 2006 ( see online ), the appellant, was getting, as Chairperson of the U.P. Film Development Council the following :

(i) Honorarium of Rs. 5,000 per month;

(ii) Daily allowance @ Rs. 600 per day within the State and Rs. 750 outside the State. Rs. 10,000 per month towards entertainment expenditure.

(iii) Staff car with driver, telephones at office and residence, one P.S., one P.A. and two class IV employees.

(iv) Body Guard and night escort.

(v) Free accommodation and medical treatment facilities to her and family members.

(vi) Free accommodation in government circuit houses/guest house and hospitality while on tour.

The Supreme Court held :

" The office carried with it a monthly honorarium of Rs. 5000, entertainment expenditure of Rs. 10,000., staff car with driver, telephones at office and residence, free accommodation and medical treatment facilities to self and family members, apart from other allowances etc. That these are pecuniary gains, cannot be denied "

 So we have to see what exact payments, benefits and allowances were the parliamentary secretaries of the Delhi Govt. getting, to determine whether they were holding offices of profits.
Unfortunately, these facts are not with me