Holding

The reward is an ex gratia payment governed by the Scheme; the 1989 amendment is applicable; Clause 7 restrictions apply to all government servants with rank equivalence considered, and reward is payable as per the Scheme.

Summary

The Union of India issued a 1985 Reward Scheme for informers and government servants involved in seizures under the Customs, Central Excise & Salt, Gold Control and Foreign Exchange Regulation Acts, later amended in 1989 to cap rewards at Rs 1 lakh per seizure and Rs 10 lakh in a career. IPS officer R. Padmanabhan, who supervised the seizure of gold biscuits worth about Rs 3.5 crore, was denied a reward because his rank was deemed higher than the categories specified in Clause 7.1 of the Scheme. He challenged the denial in the Kerala High Court, which held that the 1989 amendment was not retrospective and that Clause 7.2 excluded only officers above the specified level from reward based on seizure value. The Supreme Court held that the reward is a pure ex‑gratia payment governed strictly by the Scheme, that the 1989 amendment applies even to seizures made before its date, and that Clause 7 restrictions apply to all government servants with equivalence of rank to be considered. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside, but the Court directed a special reward of Rs 2.5 lakh to be paid to the respondent.

Issues considered

What is the nature of the reward under the Scheme – a vested right or an ex gratia payment?
Does the 1989 amendment limiting reward amounts have retrospective effect?
Do the restrictions in Clause 7.1/7.2 of the Scheme bar a government servant of higher rank from receiving reward based on seizure value?
Whether equivalence of rank in other departments must be considered for reward eligibility?
What is the relevant date for applying the Scheme’s guidelines – the date of seizure or the date of adjudication?

Legislation cited

Subjects

reward schemeex gratiacustoms seizuregovernment servant eligibilityclause 7retrospective amendmentadjudication daterank equivalence

Judgment

A UNION OF INDIA
v.
R. PADMANABHAN

AUGUST 13, 2003

B [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.]

Customs Act, 1962, Centra/..· Excise and Salt Act, 1944, Gold Control
Act, 1968 and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973/Notification dated
C 30th March, 1985 and amendments thereunder; Clauses 4, 6 and 8: Scheme/
Guidelines for Reward for seizure of goods-:-Payment of Rewards thereof to
Government Servant/informer-Amendment. limiting the amount of Reward-
Effective date-Held: Government Servant could not be placed on par with
other Informant-Since Reward is an ex-gratia payment, it must conform to
the guidelines-No right accrues till reward is determined and awarded-
D Since a Reward becomes final only on adjudication, date of adjudication is
relevant date-High Court did not act properly by not considering the
amendment since amendment was made before adjudication of the case-
Hence the order of the High Court cannot be sustained-However, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, payment of Reward of Rs.2.5 lakhs, as
E a special case, directed
Clause 7-Jnterpretation of-Reward to Departmental Officers vis-a-vis
officers in other Departments-Equivalent rank in other Departments-Held:
As per provisions of the Scheme certain categories of eligible tjepartmental
officers have been specified only to illustrate-Jn other Departments equivalent
F rank could be determined for application of the Scheme.

Appellant, Union of India issued a Reward Scheme vide its Notification
dated 30-3-1985 authorising the State Police to effect seizure of the
contraband goods and to make investigation under the Central Excise and Salt
Act, Customs Act, Gold Control Act and Foreign Exchange and Regulation
..
G Act. Respondent-informant, an JPS Officer, seized gold biscuits in two
operations supervised by him. A sum of Rs. 11.28 lakhs was sanctioned by
:.,
the Union of India towards disbursement of reward to 163 officers of the
. Customs as well as Police Department. However, claim of the respondent for
reward was not allowed since he was holding a rank higher to the eligible
categories of officers. His representations were rejected by the concerned
H ~2

i-
U.0.I. v. R. PADMANABHAN 433
authorities. He had filed Writ Petitions before the High Court Single Judge A
directed the Department to consider his claim on merit holding that the
exclusion of the specified categories of officers from being rewarded should
be on the basis of value of seizure and not otherwise and amendments in the
guidelines limiting the value of Reward cannot have retrospective effect. On
appeal, the order was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court Hence B
the present appeal.

· It was contended for the appellant that since the payment of Reward beirr·g
a pure ex-gratia payment, it should strictly satisfy the stipulations contained
in the Order of the Government; that grant of reward to the officers of other
Departments was subject to the restrictions contained in Clause 7.1 of the C
Scheme; that any directions issued contrary to the provisions of Clause 7.1
could not be held justified; and that the amendment made in the Scheme would
be applicable to the present case.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The" decision of the Division Bench of the High Court D
rendered in affirmance of the one rendered by the Single Bench suffer from
a serious infirmity in not adverting properly to the basics and fundamentals
of the Scheme for Rewards and in assuming to the contra that when an
informer could be rewarded liberally, the Government servant also, must be
shown the same consideration, whereas a careful scanning may go to show E
that an informant is placed on a different pedestal than a Government servant
[442-B, C]

1.2. Reward is purely an ex gratia payment, subject to the Guidelines on
the discretion of the competent authority, though it cannot arbitrarily be denied
or refused at whim or fancy and it should specifically conform to and must be F
shown to fall or claimed within the four corners of the Scheme and not by any
deviation or modulation of the Schen1e, as the Courts think it should be and ifit
cannot come strictly within the four corners of it, such claim may have to be
dealt with only under the residuary powers enabling the grant of reward. That
apart, 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 G
Guidelines and Policy in 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. The line of decisions in relation to vested rights
accrued being protected from any subsequent amendments may not be relevant
for such a situation. [442-D, E, F] H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 1.3. the reward could not have been allowed completely ignoring the
amendments, which came into force in April 1989, merely because the seizure
was in February 1989. That apart, under the Scheme final reward is postulated
only on adjudication of the case resulting iil confiscation of the goods as found
stated in clause 6 of the Guidelines and that should, therefore, be crucial and
B relevant date for consideration of award and, therefore, the Guidelin2S, as are
in force on that date, would be really applicable and would be relevant
Consequently, the exclusion of the amendment, which was made in April 1989,
from the consideration in this case, may not be proper, and th.e conclusion to
the contrary by the High Court, cannot be sustained. (443-A, B, CJ

C State of Tamil Nadu vs. Mis. Hind Stone and Ors. [1981) 2 SCC 205,
relied on.

1.4. The interpretation placed as though the restrictions in clause 7
would have no relevance to the officers other than the specified officers of the
Department of Central Excise/Customs cannot be justified, either on the
D language of the Gi-idelines or on the conspectus of the Scheme for rewards.
The classification made is between informers on the one hand and Government
servants on the other - and not with reference to any particular class or
category of Government servants alone. The specification of certain officers
are meant to illustrate the level and standard of their category/class with
particular reference to the gradation of offices they hold and the granting
E authority or courts, if need be, have to necessarily arrive at the equivalence
in other Departments as well - from among the other class of Government
servants, as a whole, serving either under the State or Central Government
- and the Scheme cannot be mutilated otherwise or moulded to suit the
consideration of a particular or given case, favourably. [443-C, D, E)
F 1.5. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, instead of
relegating the matter for fresh review by the authorities in the Government,
involving further delay also, it is directed that as a special case a reward of
Rs.2.50 lakhs be paid to the respondent. (443-G, H; 444-A)

G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2769of1999.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20. 1.99 of the Kerala High Court
in W.A. No. 1077of1994.

Mukul Rohatgi, Additional Solicitor General, Hemant Sharma, B.K.
H Prasad, P. Parmeswaran for the Appellant.
U.0.1. v. R. PADMANABHAN [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 435
P. Krishnamoorthy, Romy Chacko and Rajiv Mehta for the Respondent. A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAJENDRA BABU, J. The appellant, Union of India, which lost before
the learned Single Judge in O.P. No.12775 of 1991 and before the Division
Bench of the Kerala High Court in W.A. No.1077of1994, has filed this appeal. B
The respondent, an IPS Officer, who, at the relevant point of time, was
serving as the DIG of Police, Northern Range, Kozhikode, which comprised
in his area of operation Revenue Districts of Kasargode, Cannanore, Kozhikode,
Palakkad, Wayanad and Malappuram. The appellant-Government not only
authorized the State Police authorities to effect seizure· and investigation of C
cases under the Central Excise & Salt Act, Customs Act, Gold Control Order
and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, to prevent smuggling of gold and
other articles through the coastal areas of Kerala, as well as in other parts of
the country but with a view to create an incentive generally in the matter of
detection of such violations, proposed to grant awards to those responsible D
to assist the Government in the same by being informants as well as
Government servants and issued Guidelines therefor in the Notification dated
30.3.1985; this was said to have been followed by certain amendments in the
matter of ceiling imposed, as to the quantum, by Notification dated 13.4.1989.
The respondent, claimed to have an informant in the matter in question,
worked out the information, supervised and executed an operation, which E
resulted in the seizure of 900 gold biscuits valued approximately at Rs.3.5
crores, which were concealed in an House. He also was said to have monitored
the operation after seizure and on the basis of the action taken ~y the
authorities of the Customs Department thereon it was possible for the said
authorities to seize another 1600 gold biscuits from Irikkur in Cannanore F
District. A reward of Rs.11.28 lakhs was said to have been sanctioned to 163
Officers of Customs as well as Police Department.

While so, though the claim of the respondent was also considered as
one responsible for the subject seizure, no sanction was made in his favour
for the reason that he was holding a rank considered higher than that of G
Assistant Collector/Assistant Director and consequently held not eligible for
the reward in terms of clause 7.1. of the Notification dated 30.3.1985. After
finding not successful in his representation to the higher authorities, as well
in the Government of India, O.P. No.12775of1991 was filed in the High Court,
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash the proceedings
rejecting his claim and consequently direct the appellant to sanction and pay H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A the reward to the respondent herein, in accordance with the scales mentioned
and declare that he was entitled to the reward on the basis of the Guidelines
indicated. Overruling the objections of the appellant arrayed as respondent
before the High Court, the learned Single Judge, by his Order dated 19.7.1994,
directed the Department to consider the claims of the respondent herein on
B merits and fix the quantum of reward taking into account the role played in
the operations. The learned Judge was of the view that the exclusionary rule
in clause

7 .2. of the Guidelines was intended to exclude, if at all, only the officers
above the level mentioned in the Departments specified, from being rewarded
C on the basis of the value of the seizure and not others. As for the amendment
issued in April 1989, limiting the total reward to Rs. I lakh per seizure and a
total limit of Rs.IO lakhs in ones career, the High Court was of the view that
the seizure in the case having been made on 24.12.1989, cannot have
retrospective effect and, therefore, not relevant.

D Aggrieved, the appellant pursued the matter on appeal in W.A. No.1077
of 1994 and the Division Bench also confirmed the order of the learned Single
Judge and directed the appellant to grant the reward to the respondent after
fixing the quantum in accordance with Ex.P. l within two months from the date
of receipt of the copy of the order and that on failing to do so or paying the
same within a month from the date of its order, the amount shall carry interest
E at 15% from the date of its due till payment. Hence, this appeal.

The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant
contended that being a pure ex gratia payment, it should be strictly in
accordance with the stipulations contained in the order itself and if the
claimant, in any case, does not satisfy the stipulations therein, the Department
F not only can, in appropriate cases, consider such claims for any lump sum
reward but not at the rates specified to the eligible class or category of
claimants, on the basis of the value of seized goods. It was also urged that
departmental officers of other departments such as Police, B.S.F. and Coast
Guards etc. are envisaged under the Guidelines for being granted such rewards
G subject to the restrictions in Clause 7-1 and the directions issued to the
contrary cannot be justified in law and being a matter pertaining to the sphere
of policy, it cannot be modulated, modified or restructured so as to affect the
very basis of the orders of the Government. The provisions contained in the
amendment made on 13.4.89 was also urged to apply to the case. The learned
Senior Counsel for the respondent, while adopting the reasoning of the High
H Court, reiterated that the construction placed by the High Court and the
U.0.1. v. R. PADMANABHAN [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 437
reasons assigned therefor are not only reasonable but constitute just and A
reasonable method of implementation keeping into account the avowed purpose
and object underlying the very Scheme and consequently, no interference is
called for.

We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing on either side. It is not only useful but necessary to advert to the B
relevant portions of the Notification dated 30.3.1985 laying down the Guidelines
for the reward, since the High Court, learned Single Judge and the Division
Bench, seem to have dealt with the claims of parties purely on the basis of
clause 7 without noticing the other relevan.t and essential provisions, apparently
and may be on account of the fact that their attention was not properly drawn C
by the appellant-Government, at that point of time. The relevant portions of
the Guidelines, necessary for appreciating the contentions on either side, are
as hereunder:-

"The Government have reviewed the existing policy, procedure and
orders in respect of grant of rewards to informers and Government D
servaP.ts in case of seizures made, infringement or evasion o~ duty,
etc., detected under the provisions of the following Acts:-

(i) The Customs Act, 1962 ii) The Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944
iii) The Gold Control Act, 1968 iv) The Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act, 1973 E
(2) As a result, the revised guidelines are laid down in the succeeding
paras, All provisions/guidelines issued on the subject may be
deemed to be modified to the extent indicated therein.

I.I QUANTUM OF REWARDS
F
Seizures of contraband under the Customs Act

3 .1.1 Informers and government servants will be eligible for rewards
upto 20% of the estimated market value of the contraband goods
seized. In respect of gold silver, opium and other narcotic drugs
etc., the overall ceilings for rewards (based on broadly 20% of the G
value of these items, as reckoned by the Government for the
present) are shown in the Annex. These would be subject to
periodically revision in the light of price fluctuations about which
timely intimations should be sent to DGRI every quarter to enable
him to recommend appropriate revision as and when warranted, H
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A to the Ministry.

32.
3.2.l Informers and Government servants will be eligible for reward
upto 20% of the duty, if any, sought to be evaded plus 20% of
the fine and penalty levied/imposed and realized, provided the
B amount does not exceed 20% of the market value of the goods
involved.

3.3. Seizures made, evasion of duty and other infringement detected
under the Central Excise & Salt Act.
c 3.3.l ..................................................................................................................... .
3.4. Seizures under the Gold Control Act and cases ofother violations
detected under the Gold Control Act.
3.4. l. In case of seizures of gold bullion, the overall ceiling for rewards
to informers and Government servants will be as indicated in
D serial No. I of the Annex.

3.4.2. In other cases, whether of seizure of articles of gold/ornaments,
or of detection of"shortages", informers and Government servants
will be eligible for reward upto 20% of the redemption fined and/
or penalty imposed and realized, provided the. amount does not
E exceed 20% of the market price of the goods involved.

3.5. Cases of seizures/violations detected under FERA

3.5.l ···························································
4. REWARD SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF
F ROUTINE.

4.1. Reward is purely an ex-gratia payment which, subject to 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 rewards which may be granted,
the authority competent to grant reward will keep specificity and
G
accuracy of the information, the risk and trouble undertaken, the
extent and nature of the help rendered by the informer, whether
information gives clues to persons involved in smuggling, or
their association, etc; the risk involved for the Government
servants in working out the case, the difficulty in accruing the
H information, the extent to which the vigilance on the staff led to
U.0.1. v. R. PADMANABHAN [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.] . 439

the seizures, special initiative, efforts and ingenuity displayed, A
etc. and whether, besides the seizure of contraband goods, the
owners/organizers/ financiers/racketeers as well as the carriers
have been apprehended or not.
42. To Government servants, rewards may ordinarily be paid upto
10% of the estimated market value of the goods involved (half B
of the maximum rewards indicated in respect of gold, opium and
other narcotic drugs, etc. in the Annex.). Rewards in excess of
this limit, but not exceeding 20% (or as in Annex., in respect of
gold, silver, narcotics, etc.) of the said value, maybe considered
in cases where the Government servant has exposed himself to
a great personal hazard or displayed exemplary courage, C
commendable initiative, ingenuity or his personal efforts have
been mainly responsible for the detection of the goods.
5. STAGE OF PAYMENT OF REWARD
Payment of advance rewards
5.1. Advance reward may be paid to informers and Government
D
servants upto 50% of the expected final reward immediately on

- seizure in respect of the following categories of goods, namely:-
(a) gold/silver bullion and goods which are notified or specified
under the Customs Act, 1962;
(b) arms and ammunition, explosives;
E
(c) opium and other narcotic drugs;
(d) goods not declared which are seized in the Customs area or
Customs waters; and
(e) freely convertible foreign exchange in the form of currency F
notes.
.. 5.2. In other ("Smuggling") cases of seizures of contraband goods,
advance reward upto 25% of the expected final reward may be paid

..
immediately after seizure, if the authority competent to sanction reward
is satisfied that the goods seized are reasonably expected to be G
confiscated on adjudication and the order is likely to be sustained in
appeal/revision proceedings.

5.3. In all other cases, whether of seizure of evasion/infringement
detected on the basis of documents, 25% of the expected final reward
may be paid after the issue of a show cause notice provided the H
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A authority competent to sanction reward is satisfied that there is
reasonable chance of confiscability/infringement/evasion, as the case
may be, being established in adjudication and sustained in appeal/
revisionary proceedings.

SA. In exceptional cases, the Heads of Departments may, having
B regard to the value of the seizures effected and magnitude of the
evasion :or infringement detected and magnitude of the evasion or
infringement detected and special efforts or ingenuity displayed by
the officers concerned, sanction and announce the grant of suitable
rewards on the spot to be adjusted against the advance reward that
may be sanctioned.
c
6. Final rewards will be paid after adjusting the advance rewards, if
any, paid in the mentioned/indicated in proceeding paras.

6.2. In respect of the goods described in para 5.1, the remaining 50%
of the reward will be sanctioned both to the informers and Government
D servants on adjudication of the case resulting in confiscation of the
goods. If, however, the party concerned delays adjudication
proceedings by contesting the imposition of penalty only but the
confiscation of the goods, the final reward may be sanctioned even
prior to the conclusion of the adjudication proceedings.

E 6.3. In all other cases, 25% of the expected final reward may be paid
after adjudication resulting in confiscation and/or confirmation of the
demand, infringement and the remaining 50% may be paid after the
conclusion of the appeal/revision proceedings by the appropriate
authorities (such as Tribunal, FERA Board, etc.) resulting in the
upholding of confiscation, demand, fine p~nalties, etc. imposed under
F the respective Acts.

7. TO WHOM REWARD MAY BE PAID
7.1. Ordinarily, informers and Government servants (upto the level of
Group 'A' Superintendents/Assistant Collectors of Customs and
G Central Excise/Assistant Directors will be eligible for reward depending
on the contribution made by them as a team as well as individually
with regard to the collection of intelligence, surveillance, effecting of
seizure etc. Due credit should be given to the staff employed on
investigation.

H 7.2. Group 'A' officers above the level of Assistant Collector/Assistant
U.0.1. v. R. PADMANABHAN [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 441

Director will not be eligible for reward on the basis of value of the A
seizures, etc. However, in appropriate cases, government may consider,
in consultation with CCA/DGRI Director, Anti Evasion, the grant of
lump-sum payment/advance increments and/or recognitions, in any
other manner of the services rendered by them for which purpose the
Heads of Department should forward their recommendation to the B
aforementioned officers with a copy to the Ministry.

·8. ··················•··•······································

8.1.l ····························································

8.1.2 ···························································· c
8.1.3 All case of grant of reward to Government servants in excess of
the limits specified above should be examined and approved by a
Committee consisting of the following :-

Amount of reward for Constitution of the Govt. Servants Committee
D
I. Rewards in exc~ss of Rs.10,000/- I. Head of D~partment
but not exceeding Rs. One lac 2. Additional Collector and
3. Senior most Deputy
Collector/ Dy. Collector all
the Hqrs.
E
2. Rewards in excess of Rs.I Lac I. Head of Department
and upto Rs.5 Lacs 2 Director, Preventive
Operations and

3. Additional Collector/
Special Director in
charge of the Hqrs.
F
3. Reward in excess of Rs.5 Lacs I. Concerned Member of
the C.B.E.C. or G.C.A.as
the Case may and

2. DGRl/Director, G
Enforcement/ Director,
Anti-Evasion as the case
may be, and

3. the Head of Department
concerned." H
442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A It is not in controversy that an amendment came to be issued vide
P.No.R-13011/5/89.Ad.v. of the Department of Revenue in April 1989
limiting the total rewardto Rs. I lakh for seizure and to a total limit of
Rs. I 0 lakhs in.ones career, though there was dispute about its relevance
and applicability to the claim of the respondent on the ground that
it had no retrospective application to the seizure effected on 24.2.1989,
B in this case.

The decision of the Division Bench rendered in affirmance of the one
rendered by the Single Bench suffer from a serious infirmity in not adverting
properly to the basics and fundamentals of the Scheme for Rewards and in
C assuming to the contra that when an informer could be given liberally, the
Government servant also, must be shown the same consideration, whereas a
careful scanning through may go to show that an Informant is placed on a
different pedestal than a Government servant. The rewards are also to be and
can be "upto 20%" or as the case may be and not that invariably it must be
as a rule 20% of the estimated market value. Reward is purely an ex gratia
D payment, subject to the Guidelines on the discretion of the competent authority,
though it cannot arbitrarily be denied or refused at whim or fancy and it
should specifically conform to and must be shown to fall or claimed within
the four comers of the Scheme and not by any deviation or modulation of
the Scheme, as the Courts think it should be and if it cannot come strictly
E within the four corners of it, such claim may have to be dealt with only under
the residuary powers enabling the grant of reward. That apart, 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 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
F the Scheme itself. The line of decisions relation to vested rights accrued being
protected from· any subsequent amendments may not be relevant for such a
situation and it would be apposite to advert to the decision of this Court
reported in State.ofTamil Nadu v. Mis Hind Stone and Ors., [1981] 2 SCC
205. That was a case wherein this Court had to consider the claims of lessees
for renewal of their leases or for grant of fresh leases under the Tamil Nadu
G Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The High Court was of the view that
it was not open to the State Government to keep the applications filed for
lease or renewal for a Jong time and then dispose them of on the basis of a
rule which had come into force later. This Court, while reversing such view
taken by the High Court, held that in the absence of any vested rights in
H anyone, an application for a lease has necessarily to be dealt with according
U.0.1. v. R. PADMANABHAN [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.) 443

to the rules in force on the date of the disposal of the application, despite A
the delay, if any, involved although it is desirable to dispose of the applications,
expeditiously. Therefore, the reward could not have been allowed in this case
completely ignoring the amendments, which came into force in April 1989,
merely because the seizure was in February 1989. That apart, under the
Scheme final reward is postulated only on adjudication of the case resulting B
in confiscation of the goods as found stated in clause 6 of the Guidelines and

- that should, therefore, be crucial and relevant date for consideration of award
and, therefore, the Guidelines, as are in force on that date, will· be really
applicable and would relevant. Consequently, the exclusion of the amendment,
which was made in April 1989, from consideration in this case, may not be
proper, and the conclusion to the contrary by the High Court, cannot be C
sustained.

The interpretation placed as though the restrictions in clause 7 will have
no relevance to the officers other than the officers specified of the Department
of Central Excise/Customs cannot be justified, either on the language of the
Guidelines or on the conspectus of the Scheme for rewards. The classification D
made is between informers on the one hand and Government servants on the
other - and not with reference to any particular class of category of Government
servants alone. The specification of certain officers are meant to illustrate the
level and standard of their category/class with particular reference to the
gradation of offices they hold and the granting authority or courts, if need E
be, have to necessarily arrive at the equivalence in other Departments as well
- from among the other class of Government servants, as a whole, serving
either under the State or Central Government - and the Scheme cannot be
mutilated otherwise or moulded to suit the consideration of a particular or
given case, favourably. Clause 8.1.3 provides the necessary clue in this regard
and the consideration, if at all, has to be with reference to the provisions F
contained in clause 4 and the various Guidelines contained therein .
., For all the reasons stated above, we are unable to accord approval to
the decision of the High Court. The judgment under challenge is, therefore,
set aside. On the facts of the case, it is found that on 4. 7 .1995, after the
decision of the learned Single Judge, a High Level Committee seems to have G
considered the claims of the respondent for reward and recommended a sum
of Rs. l .25 lakhs, subject to the final decision of the High Court, and kept in
abeyance the ~ctual disbursal of the sum. In the light of all these and instead
of relegating the matter for fresh review, by the authorities in the Government,
involving further delay also, we would instead direct the payment of a reward H
444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A of Rs.2.50 lakhs, treating the same as a special case and the delay already
involved and the decision said to have been taken - irr order to give a quietus
to the problem. The sum directed by this order may be disbursed within a
period of sixty days from this date without fail. The appeal shall stand allowed
to the extent indicated above and subject to the payment ordered above. The
respondent has been driven to unnecessary litigation by completely denying
B anything initially for all his efforts and had to face proceedings in this Court
also. The appellant will pay Rs. 15,000 for the costs of the respondent, while
bearing their own costs. +

S.K.S. Appeal partly allowed.