UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusC. KRISHNA REDDY

A                       UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
                                   v.
                           C. KRISHNA REDDY

                            DECEMBER 18, 2003
B
              [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.]

        Customs Act, 1962-Grant ofReward to informers-Guidelines dated
  30.3.1985-Amended Guidelines dated 30.3.1989-Proceedings initiated
C for evasion of customs duty on infc:·mation of respondent-Respondent
  claimed Rs. 1,71,43,272 as reward, however, Rs. 10 Lakh sanctioned by
  department-Writ petition filed in High Court-Single Judge directed
  additional payment of Rs. 25 Lakhs to respondent and consider payment
  of balance amount-Division Bench modified order and directed payment
D of Rs. 10 Lakhs instead of Rs. 25 Lakhs-On appeal Held, decision on
  entitlement of reward, which is ex-gratia in nature, subject to guidelines
  and absolute discretion of competent authority-Department alone can
   weigh and examine usefulness of given information-No One can claim
  reward as a matter of right-Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944---Gold
   Control Act-Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
E
          Constitution of India-Article 226-Writ of Mandamus-
    Maintainability of writ for grant of reward-held, grant of reward cannot
    be claimed as a matter of right as it is purely ex-gratia payment-No
    statutory duty imposed upon officer concerned and no failure to discharge
F   statutory obligation-Hence Writ not maintainable.

          The Department of Customs and Central Excise initiated pro-
    ceedings for evasion of Customs duty amounting to approximately Rs.
    3 Crores on the ba!iis of information given by the respondent. A duty
G   of Rs. 3.37 Crores apart from redemption fine of Rs. 3.80 Crores and
    penalty of Rs. 1.55 Crores was levied. However, the department could
    only realise Rs. 2 Lakhs towards the same due to various constraints.
    The respondent claimed Rs. 1,71,43,272 by way of reward and the
    department sanctioned only Rs. 10 Lakhs. Respondent filed a writ
H   petition in the High Court claiming the balance amount. Single Judge
                                      1084
                         U.0.1. v. C.K. REDDY                      1085

directed the department to pay an additional sum of Rs. 25 Lakhs A
and consider payment of the balance amount. In writ appeal
Division Bench modified the order directing payment of Rs. 10 Lakhs
instead of Rs. 25 Lakhs, and if not made within the time granted it
would amount to revival of the order of the Single Judge. Hence these
appeals.                                                              B
       Appellants contended that guidelines regarding payment of award
 dated 30.3.1985 stood amended since 30.3.1989; that since the matter
 was decided subsequent to the amendment, guidelines as amended on
 30.3.1989 would apply; and that as the reward is purely on ex-gratia C
 payment subject to guidelines and discretion of the competent author-
 ity, no writ of mandamus would be maintainable.

       Respondents contended that they have uniformly followed guide-
 lines as on 30.3.1985 and there is no reason to depart from the same; D
 and that revised guidelines dated 30.3.1989 cannot be given retrospec-
 tive operation.

      Allowing the appeal filed by the Union of India and dismissing the ·
· appeal filed by the informant, the Court
                                                                          E
       HELD : 1. The scheme or the policy of the Government of India
 dated 30.3.1985 shows that the authority competent to grant the
 reward, while taking a decision regarding the entitlement of the person
 concerned has to keep many factors in his mind like specificity and
 accuracy of the information, the risk and trouble undertaken, the F
 extent and nature of the help rendered by the informer, whether
 information gives clues of the persons involved in smuggling or their
 associates, the difficulty in securing the information, the risk involved
 for the government servants in working out the case and whether apart
 from seizure of contraband goods, the owners/orgnisers/financiers/ G
 racketeers have been apprehended. The scheme further mentions that
 reward is an ex-gratia payment anrl subject to the guidelines and
 granted on the absolute discretion of the authority competent and
 further that no one can claim the reward as ~ matter of right. High
 Court in writ jurisdiction cannot examine or weigh the various _factors H
    1086               SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A which have to be taken into consideration while deciding a claim
    regarding grant of reward. These are matters exclusively within the
    domain of the authorities of the Department as they alone can weigh
    and examine the usefulness or otherwise of the information given by
    the informer. If the grant of reward cannot be claimed as a matter of
B   right it is not understandable as to how a writ of mandamus can be
    issued commanding the Government to give a particular amount by
    way of reward. (1093-H; 1094-A-B-C-D]

         2. The view that the revised gui<Jelines would not apply is
C   patently erroneous both on the fact situation of the case and also as
    a principle of law. It is a matter of record that respondent made a claim
    for grant of reward for the first time after the. Collector of Customs
    passed the final order on 5.3.1993, when the revised guidelines were
    in force. [1093-D-E)

D          Union of India v. R. Padmanabhan, (2003) JT 7 SC 196, relied on.

          3. Writ of Mandamus can be granted only in a case where there
    is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a
E   failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation.
    The chieffunction of the writ is to compel P".,rformance of public duties
    prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers
    exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. In
    order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do
    something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a
F   legal duty and t!te aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute
    to enforce its performance. [1094-F-G]

         Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi
    Singh, AlR (1977) SC 2149; Lekhraj Satnam Dass Lalvani v. Deputy
G   Custodian-cum-Managing Officer, AIR (1966) SC 334 and Dr. Umakant
    Saran v. State of Bihar, AIR (1973) SC 964, relied on.

         4. By the very nature of things no one has a legal right to claim
    a reward. The scheme itself shows that it is purely an ex-gratia payment
H   subject to guidelines and may be granted on the absolute discretion of
              U.0.1. v. C.K. REDDY [G.P. MATHUR, J.)               1087

the competent authority and cannot be claimed by anyone as a matter A
of right. High Court committed manifest error of law in issuing a Writ
of Mandamus directing the appellant to pay the amount to the respond-
ent. Single Judge issued a writ that apart from Rs. 10 lakhs which had
already been paid a further amount of Rs. 5 lakhs should be paid
within four weeks and the appellant was further directed to determine B
entitlement of balance amount of the reward and pay the same within
three months. Division Bench partly modified the order and issued
directions for payment of Rs. 5 lakhs within three weeks on receipt of
the copy of the order and a further sum of Rs. 5 lakhs within three
weeks, thereafter and further directing that in case of non-compliance C
within the stipulated time, it will have to pay the rest of the amount
as per the previous orders. There is no justification for passing these
kind of peremptory orders. [1095-A-B-C-D-E-F]

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7127 of D
1999.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.99 of the Madras High
Court in W.A. No. 1431 of 1998.

                                 WITH                                     E

     C.A. No. 877 of 2000.

    N.K. Bajpai, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija and B.K. Prasad for the
Appellants.                                                               F

    Mr. K. Amareswari, S. Sadasiva Reddy, Ms. S. Usha Reddy, D.N.
Mehta, R.C. Mishra and Dr. Meera Agarwal for the Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                           G
     G.P. MATHUR, J. : I. This appeal by special leave has been
preferred by Union of India against the judgment and order dated
22.9.1999 of a Division Bench of Mad.as High Court in a writ appeal
whereby the order passed by a learned Single Judge on 22.9 .1998 directing H
    1088                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A payment of Rs. 25 lakhs in addition to the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs already
    paid by way of reward for giving information to custom authorities was
    partly modified.

           2. The r~spondent C. Krishna Reddy filed a writ petition in the High
B Court ofMadras claiming an amount of Rs. l',71,43,272 by way of reward
  for having given information to the concerned officers of the Department
  of Customs and Central Excise. The case set up in the writ petition, in brief,
  was that Mis. Sanjeevani Fodder Products Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred
  as 'Sanjeevani') and Mis. FOMETA India Machines Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter
C referred as 'FOMETA') had evaded Customs duty amounting to approxi-
  mately Rs. 3 crores by contravening the conditions of ad hoc exemption
  Order No. I 03187 dated 30.3.1987 as amended. Mis. Sanjeevani had got
  the said exemption order from the Government of India exempting 50
  Fodder Production Units to be imported by them subject to the condition
D that they would donate these machines to Bharat Krishak Samaj (BKS)
  within 15 days from their clearance and BKS would use them only for
  demonstration purposes and would not sell, transfer or dispose of these
  machines for a period of five years. Mis. Sanjeevani had imported and
  cleared these machines through the Port of Madras free of duty in terms
E of the said exemption order. Though Mis. Sanjee'::ani had produced
  documents before the Customs authorities showing donation of these
  machines to BKS but the same remained in their control and possession
  at their own sites and also at the site of Mis. FOMETA and were being
  utilised for commercial production of fodder and hence both the conditions
  of the ad hoc exemption Order were contravened. The exemption Order
F was for 50 machines but actually 56 machines had been imported -and 5
  out of them had been sold to some Government Departments. The case of
  Writ petitioner (respondent herein) further was that on the basis of the
  information furnished by him and inquiries made by the authorities of the
  Department they came to know that Mis. Sanjeevani had started selling the
G Fodder Production Units. After the import of the machines in CKD
  condition, Mis. Sanjeevani got the Fodder Production Units assembled at
  Gummidipoondi at the work place of M/s. FOMETA and thereafter 12
  units were installed in Bolaram, 12 in Bulandshahir, 12 in Bagru and the
  balance 14 FPUs were to be stationed at Jaisalmer. Some of the units were
H operational as per the investigation. The Department thereafter issued a
              U.0.1. v. C.K. REDDY [G.P. MATHUR, J.]               1089

show cause notice dated 12.2.1990 and proceedings were initiated for A
confiscation of the goods. The case was adjudicated by Collector of
Customs (Judicial) Madras who passed an order on 5.3.1993 directing for
confiscation of the goods with an option for redemption of the same on
payment of fine and a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs was imposed upon Mis.
FOMET A and personal penalty was imposed upon some Directors of the       B
company. After the decision of the Commissioner of Customs (Madras) the
writ petitioner sent a letter dated 15.4.1993 to the Deputy Director,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras, to sanction him the reward
keeping in view the duty, fine and penalty levied in the case. The
Department sanctioned an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs on 6.11.1993 as an C
advance reward which was paid to him and thereafter another sum of
Rs. 5 lakhs was sanctioned on 26.4.1995 and in this manner he received
only Rs. 10 lakhs. The writ petition was accordingly filed claiming the
balance amount of reward in terms of the guidelines issued by the
Department.                                                               D

      3. Counter-affidavit on behalfofthe respondent was filed by Shri R.
Mohan Doss, Assistant Director in the Directorate of Revenue, Intelli-
gence, Madras wherein it is stated that on the basis of the information
received, investigation was done and it was found that Mis. Sanjeevani and E
Mis. FOMETA had evaded-customs duty amounting to Rs. 3 crores by
contravening the conditions of ad hoc examination order No. I 03187 dated
30.3.1987. The details of the manner of import, misutilisation of the
machines, contravention of the exemption order, the proceedings initiated
by the Collector of Customs and the orders passed by him have also been
given. It is averred in para 7 and 10.7 of the counter affidavit that only F
one party namely, Indian Grass Land and Fodder Research Institute,
Jhansi, deposited the redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs in respect of
one confiscated unit but in respect of remaining 55 units nobody
came forward to clear the same on payment of redemption fine and
duty and the penalty amounts could not be recovered from the G
persons concerned. The seized articles could not be auctioned as Mis.
Sanjeevani had taken loans against the Fodder Production Units from
financial institutions and such financial institutions have also claimed the
units which had been hypothecated to them. Even though no duty, fine or
penalty could be realised from the persons concerned but an amount of Rs. H
    1090                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   I 0 lakhs was sanctioned and disbursed to the writ petitioner by way of
    reward.

         4. The is important to note that in the counter-affidavit, it is nowhere
    admitted that the depa1iment conducted the investigation in the matter of
B   import of machines and availing of exemption notification by Mis.
    Sanjeevani and M/s. FOMET A only on the basis of information furnished
    by the Writ Petitioner. Therefore, the main ground for claiming the reward
    had not been admitted. The writ petitioner did not substantiate his claim
    in any manner that it was only on the basis of the information su.pplied
C   by him that the proceedings had been commenced by the Department
    which ultimately led to passing of an order of confiscation, fine and
    penalty.

           5. The learned Single Judge proceeded on the footing that admittedly
D the writ petitioner gave the information with regard to contravention made
    by Mis. Sanjeevani and M/s. FOMETTA and thereafter Units were seized,
    adjudication proceedings were initiated and finally a duty ofRs. 3.37 crores
    apart from redemption fine of Rs. 3.80 crores and penalty of Rs. 1.55 crores
    was levied and consequently the writ petitioner is entitled for a reward of
E   20 per cent of the total amount. The learned Judge further held that when
    the writ petitioner passed on the information on a reasonable hope and
    expectation that he will get the award, the principle of legitimate expec-
    tation would come into play and he was entitled to the award. The plea
    of Union of India that writ petitioner was not entitled to claim the reward
    as a matter of right since the orders issued by Government in this regard
F   are merely guidelines and do not have any force of law was not accepted.
    The learned Judge also brushed aside the contention of the appellant that
    in spite of best efforts the Department had not been able to realise any
    amount and till such realisation was made it was not possible to give any
    amount by way of reward. The learned Judge went on to hold that taking
G   in to consideration the fact that the writ petitioner had been paid a sum
    of Rs. I 0 lakhs, he should be paid an additional sum of Rs. 25 lakhs within
    four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Department was
    fmiher directed to determine his entitlement of the reward in respect of the
    balance amount and pass an order with regard to disbursement of the same
H   within three months.
              U.0.1. v. C.K. REDDY [G.P. MATHUR, J.]                1091

      6. The Union of India preferred a writ appeal against the decision of A
learned Single Judge wherein it was submitted that as per the guidelines
which had been modified on 30.3.1989 the reward can be granted only after
the issue had been finally adjudicated and the amount had been realised.
The Division Bench, however, held that the amount of the reward had to
be paid in accordance with the guidelines as they stood before the B
amendment and the amended guidelines cannot be given any retrospective
operation. Taking the view that the amount directed to be paid by the
\earned Single Judge was on the higher side, it was directed that department
should pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs within three weeks from the date of the
receipt of the order and a further su~ of Rs. 5 lakhs within three weeks C
thereafter. In the event the Department failed to pay the aforesaid amount
within the time granted, it would pay the whole amount as per the order
of the learned Single Judge.

      7. Learned counsel for the appellant Union oflndia has submitted that D
the guidelines issued on 30.3 .1985 regarding payment of award had been
amended on 30.3 .1989 and since the present case the Collector of Customs
had decided the matter subsequently on 5.3.1993, it is the amended
guidelines which would be applicable and the payment had to be made in.
accordance with the said guidelines. Learned counsel has also submitted E
that reward is purely an ex-gratia payment, which subject to the guidelines,
may be granted on the discretion of the competent authority and a decision
regarding claim of amount is to be taken upon consideration of evidence
after giving due regard to many factors and, therefore, no Writ of
Mandamus can be issued by the Court to direct payment of a quantified
amount by way of reward. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other F
hand, has submitted that the policy dated 30.3.1985 having been uni formally
followed by the Government in making payment of the reward to
informers, there was no reason to depart from the same and the revised
guidelines dated 30.3.1989 cannot be given any retrospective operation.
Learned counsel has further submitted that having regard to the facts and G
circumstances of the case, the order passed by the High Court was perfectly
correct and calls for no interference.

      8. In order to examine the question whether the respondent had any
legal right to claim the amount by way of reward as a matter of right, it H
    1092               SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 s.c.R.

A is necessary to take note of the relevant provisions of the guidelines issued
    by the Government of India on 30.3.1985 regarding the policy, procedure
    and orders in respect of grant of rewards to informers and Government
    servants in case of seizure made and evasion of duty etc. detected u~der
    the provisions of the Customs Act, Central Excise and Salt Act, 1962, Gold
B   Control Act and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Paras 4 and 4.1 of the
    guidelines read as under :

             "4.   REWARD SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED AS A MATTER
                   OF ROUTINE
c            4.1. Reward is purely an ex-gratia payment which subject to the
                 · guidelines, may be granted on the absolute discretion of the
                   authority competent to grant rewards and cannot be claimed
                   by anyone as a matter of right. In determining the reward
                   which may be granted, the authority competent to grant
D                  reward will keep in mind the specificity and accuracy of the
                   information, the risk and trouble undeqaken, the extent ~nd
                   nature of the help rendered by the informer, whether infor-
                   mation gives clues to persons involved in smuggling, or
                   their associates, etc.; the risk involved for the government
E                  servants in working out the case, the difficulty in
                   securing the information, the extent . to which the
                   vigilance of the staff led to. the seizure, special initiative,
                   efforts and ingenuity displayed, etc. and whether, besides
                   the seizure of contraband goods, the owners/organisers/
F                  financiers/racketeers as well as the carriers have been
                   apprehended or not."

          9. para 8 of the guidelines provides that all cases of grant of reward
    shall be examined and approved by a Committee of three senior officers
G   and in case of grant of reward in excess of Rs. twenty lakh to an informer
    it has to be approved by a Committee consisting of the Head of Department,
    Director Preventive Operations and Additional Collector/Deputy Director.
    Enforcement/Deputy Director, Anti Evasion/DR!. The aforesaid guidelines
    were reviewed and the existing reward policy was modified on 30.3.1989
H   and the same reads as under :
              U.0.1. v. C.K. REDDY [G.P. MATHUR, J.]                1093

        "The issue whether final reward should be given only after actual A
        realisation of Central Excise duty, penalty, fine even if appeal/
        revision proceeding has concluded resulting in confiscation and/
        or confirmation of demand has also been under-consideration of
        the Government. Keeping in view all aspects of the matter, it has
        been decided that final reward should be paid only after actual B
        realisation of the Central Excise Duty/Customs Duty, penalty, fine
        etc. Para 6.3 of reward rules dated 30.3.85 stands amended
        accordingly."

      10. The learned Single Judge and also Division Bench of the High C
Court have held that the reward has to be paid in accordance with the policy
or guidelines issued on 30.3.1985 and the subsequent modification of the
policy done by the Government oflndia on 30.3.1989 will not govern the
situation as the same was not retrospective in operation.

      11. In our opinion, the view taken by the High Court that the revised
                                                                           D
guidelines would not apply is patently erroneous both on the fact situation
of the case and also as a principle of law. The respondent has himself
averred in para 14 of the writ petition that the Collector of Customs, Madras
decided the case by his order dated 5 .3 .1993 and thereafter he started E
contacting the officers of the Department for payment of the reward. He,
therefore, made a claim for grant of reward for the first time in 1993. In
Union of India v. R. Padmanabhan, (2003) JT 7 SC 196 exactly same
question was examined and it was held that being ex-gratia no right accrues
to any sum as such till it is determined and awarded and, in such cases,
normally it should not only be in terms of the guidelines and policy, in F
force, as on the date of consideration and actual grant but has to be
necessarily with reference to any indications contained in this regard in the
scheme itself. It was also held that the question of any vested rights accrued
being protected from any subsequent amendments would not arise in such
a case and, therefore,. the guidelines as are in force on the date of G
consideration will really be applicable and relevant.

      12. The scheme or the policy of the Government of India dated
30.3.1985 shows that the authority competent to grant the reward, while
taking a decision regarding the entitlement of the person concerned has to H
    1094                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   keep many factors in his mind like specificity and accuracy of the
    information, the risk and trouble undertaken, the extent and nature of the
    help rendered by the informer, whether information gives clues of the
    persons involved in smuggling or their associates, the difficulty in securing
    the information, the risk involved for the government servants in working
B   out the case and whether apart from seizure of contraband goods, the
    owners/organisers/financiers/racketeers have been apprehended. The scheme
    further mentions that reward is an ex-gratia payment and subject to the
    guidelines and may be granted on the absolute discretion of the authority
    competent and further that no one can claim the reward as a matter ofright.
C   The High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot examine or weigh the various
    factors which have to be taken into consideration while deciding a claim
    regarding grant ofreward. These are matters exclusively within the domain
    of the authorities of the Department as they alone can weigh and examine
    the usefulness or otherwise of the information given by the informer. In
D   the writ petition filed by the respondent, no details had been given on the
    relevant issues. If the grant of reward cannot be claimed as a matter of right
    it is not understandable as to how a Writ of Mandamus can be issued
    commanding the Government to give a particular amount by way of
    reward. Though this specific plea was taken in paras 18 and 21 of the
E   counter affidavit, yet neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division
    Bench adverted to this aspect of the matter.

          13. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a Writ
    of Mandamas can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty
    imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of
F   that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of the
    writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and
    to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions
    within the limit of their jurisdiction. Therefore, in order that a mandamus
    may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that
G   there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has
    a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. (See Bihar
    Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh,
    AIR (1977) SC 2149 para 15; Lekharj Satram Dass Lalvani v. Deputy
    Custodian-cum-Managing Officer, AIR (1966) SC 334 and Dr. Umakant
H   Saran v. State of Bihar, AIR (1973) SC 964.
                U.0.1. v. C.K. REDDY [G.P. MATHUR, J.]               1095

      14. By the very nature of things no one has a legal right to claim a A
.reward. The Scheme itself shows that it is purely an ex-gratia payment
 subject to guidelines and may be granted on the absolute discretion of the
 competent authority and cannot be claimed by anyone as a matter of right.
 In such circumstances the High Court committed manifest error of law-in
issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the appellant to pay the amount to B
the respondent. The Department had already sanctioned Rs. I 0 lakhs to the
respondent before filing of the writ petition. In para 2l(e) of the counter-
affidavit it is averred that except for a single amount of Rs. 2 lakhs towards
redemption fine no other amount either by way of custom duty, penalty
or redemption fine had been realised by the Department. The imported C
machine1y could not be confiscated or auctioned as the same had been
hypothecated to financial institutions from whom the importers had taken
loan. In view of the amended policy the entitlement of the respondent, if
any, could be a small amount as the Department had been able to realize
only Rs. 2 lakhs. This is not a case where some large scale smuggling D
operations had been brought to light or the identity of s.ome hard core
smugglers had been revealed as a result of the information given by the
respondent. Yet the learned Single Judge of the High Court issued a writ
that apart from Rs. l 0 lakhs which had already been paid a further amount
of Rs. 25 lakhs be paid to the respondent within four weeks and the E
appellant was further directed to determine the respondent's entitlement of
balance amount of the reward and pay the same within three months. The
 Division Bench in appeal only partly modified the order and issued
 directions for payment of Rs. 5 lakhs within three weeks on the receipt of
 the copy of the order and a further sum of Rs. 5 lakhs within three weeks
 thereafter. It was further directed that in case the department failed to F
 comply with the aforesaid direction within the stipulated time, it will have
 to pay the rest of the amount as per the orders of the learned Single Judge.
 We do not find any justification for pa.,sing these kind of peremptory
orders. It is not a case of any hardship having been caused like delay in
making payment of compensation to victims of an accident or to an G
agriculturist whose land may have been acquired depriving him of his
only source of livelihood. On merits also we are clearly of the opinion
that the orders passed by the I1igh Court are not only wholly
unwarranted but are also without any legal basis and are consequently
 liable to be set aside.                                                    H
    1096                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A         15. The writ petitioner C. Krishna Reddy has also filed an appeal by
    special leave challenging the judgment and order dated 22.9.1999 of the
    Division Bench of the High Court passed in the Writ Appeal. Since we have
    held that the writ petitioner is not entitled to any further amount, the appeal
    preferred by him is liable to be dismissed.
B
         16. In the result CA No. 7127 of 1999 filed by Union of India is
    allowed and the judgment and order dated 22.9.1998 of the learned Single
    Judge and 22.9.1999 of the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside
    and the writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed. C.A. No. 877
C   of 2000 filed by C. Krishna Reddy is also dismissed.

    A.Q.                                          C.A. No. 7127/1999 allowed.
                                                  C.A. No. 877/2000 dismissed.