Ex gratia reward claims depend on current guidelines; senior officers lacked entitlement to seizure-based reward.

A Government servant above the level of Assistant Collector/Assistant Director was held outside entitlement to reward on the basis of seizure value under the governing reward scheme, because rewards to Government servants were ex gratia and not a matter of right. The scheme could not be enlarged by interpretation beyond its stated limits, though a residual power remained to grant lump sum or other recognition in appropriate cases. The April 1989 amendment limiting rewards applied because no vested right arose until the claim was considered and sanctioned; the relevant date was the date of consideration, not merely the date of seizure. The claim was therefore not accepted in full under the original guidelines, though relief was moulded by directing a special reward.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Government servant above the level of Assistant Collector/Assistant Director was entitled to reward on the basis of the value of seizure under the reward guidelines. (ii) Whether the amendment issued in April 1989 limiting rewards was applicable to the claim and whether the reward had to be determined in accordance with the guidelines in force on the relevant date.

Issue (i): Whether a Government servant above the level of Assistant Collector/Assistant Director was entitled to reward on the basis of the value of seizure under the reward guidelines.

Analysis: The reward scheme distinguished between informers and Government servants, and rewards to Government servants were not a matter of right. The guidelines placed officers above the specified level outside eligibility for reward on the basis of seizure value, while preserving only a residuary power to consider lump sum or other recognition in appropriate cases. The scheme had to be applied as framed and could not be restructured by judicial construction to extend monetary reward beyond its terms.

Conclusion: The respondent was not entitled to reward on the basis of seizure value merely because of his role in the operation.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment issued in April 1989 limiting rewards was applicable to the claim and whether the reward had to be determined in accordance with the guidelines in force on the relevant date.

Analysis: Reward under the scheme was an ex gratia payment and no vested right accrued until determination and grant. The material date was the date when the reward claim fell to be considered and sanctioned, not merely the date of seizure. Therefore, the amendment in force at the time of consideration could not be ignored on the assumption that the earlier seizure date controlled the claim.

Conclusion: The April 1989 amendment was applicable for determining the reward claim.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's view was set aside and the claim was not accepted in full under the original guidelines, but the Court moulded relief by directing a special reward to bring the dispute to an end.

Ratio Decidendi: A reward payable under an ex gratia administrative scheme must be determined strictly according to the governing guidelines in force when the claim is considered, and no claimant acquires a vested right to reward before grant.

---