Petition Dismissed: Committee's Decision Upheld

The court dismissed the petition, finding that the Reward Committee had duly considered the petitioner's case in compliance with the previous court order. There was no evidence of wrongful exercise of discretion or discrimination, and the petitioner failed to establish any violation of Article 14 or procedural lapses warranting judicial intervention. The court emphasized that the reward is discretionary and not a guaranteed right, and the Committee's decision aligned with policy guidelines.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to reward under government policy for seizure of contraband.
2. Compliance with previous court orders.
3. Discrimination and violation of Article 14.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Reward under Government Policy for Seizure of Contraband:
The petitioner, a retired police officer, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to comply with a previous court order directing them to consider his eligibility for a reward under the government policy for the seizure of contraband. The policy, issued by the Ministry of Finance, provides for rewards up to 20% of the value of seized contraband to informers and government servants. The petitioner argued that he was instrumental in the seizure of 3,400 tolas of gold and thus entitled to a reward. However, the policy specifies that rewards are ex gratia payments and not a matter of right, subject to the discretion of the competent authority. The Reward Committee had previously denied the petitioner's reward, stating he did not perform any specific task warranting an extraordinary reward.

2. Compliance with Previous Court Orders:
The petitioner had earlier approached the court in Special Civil Application No. 6554 of 1997, where the court directed the respondents to reconsider his case. The respondents claimed compliance with this order, stating that the Reward Committee reconsidered the case but found no extraordinary or exemplary efforts by the petitioner to justify the reward. The court noted that the Committee had duly considered the petitioner's case as per the guidelines and found no procedural lapses or arbitrary exercise of discretion.

3. Discrimination and Violation of Article 14:
The petitioner alleged discrimination, arguing that other officers involved in the same operation were rewarded while he was not. The court examined whether the Committee's decision was arbitrary or discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The court found that the Committee had applied the policy guidelines uniformly and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any intelligent differentia or procedural lapses in the Committee's decision-making process. The court emphasized that the reward is an ex gratia payment and not a right, and the petitioner did not establish any legally enforceable right to claim the reward.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the petitioner's case had been duly considered by the Reward Committee in compliance with the previous court order. The court found no evidence of wrongful exercise of discretion or discrimination by the Committee. The petitioner failed to establish any violation of Article 14 or any procedural lapses that would necessitate judicial intervention. The court reiterated that the reward is an ex gratia payment and not a matter of right, and the Committee's decision was within the bounds of the policy guidelines.

---