Court Denies Reward Money for Appellant Despite Contribution to Investigations

The court allowed the condonation of a one-day delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. The appellant, who provided information leading to investigations and penalties on a company, was found not entitled to reward money due to unsuccessful appeal outcomes and policy guidelines requiring successful adjudication and realization of the demand. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that reward payments are discretionary and not enforceable as a matter of right.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Entitlement to reward money based on the information provided by the appellant.
3. Applicability of the policy guidelines for reward payment.
4. Judicial review of administrative discretion in reward payment.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing the Letters Patent Appeal

The application for condonation of delay of one day in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal was considered. The court found sufficient cause for condonation of delay and accordingly allowed the Interlocutory Application No.3797 of 2015.

Issue 2: Entitlement to Reward Money

The appellant, an employee of M/s. Punjab Fibers Limited, provided information to the Central Excise Department about the company's evasion of excise duty. Based on this information, investigations led to an adjudicating authority imposing additional excise duty and penalties on the company. However, the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal later dropped the entire duty demand. Subsequent appeals by the Department up to the Supreme Court were unsuccessful. The appellant argued that the Department's choice of an incorrect forum (Delhi High Court) for initial appeals should not negate his entitlement to reward money. However, the court found no merit in this argument, noting that the Department acted under legal advice and pursued the matter diligently.

Issue 3: Applicability of Policy Guidelines for Reward Payment

The court examined the reward policy dated March 30, 1985, and its subsequent revisions. The policy specifies that reward is an ex-gratia payment subject to guidelines and at the discretion of the competent authority. The reward is payable in two stages: advance rewards and final rewards, with the latter contingent upon the successful conclusion of adjudication and appeal/revision proceedings. Since the Tribunal set aside the demand, the appellant could not claim the reward as the adjudication did not result in a successful conclusion confirming the demand.

Issue 4: Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion in Reward Payment

The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy, affirming that reward payments are ex-gratia and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The court emphasized that a writ of mandamus could not be issued to compel reward payment, as it is a discretionary administrative decision. The appellant's reliance on the judgment in Ram Mohan Prasad’s case was found inapplicable, as it dealt with retrospective promotion and not reward payments.

Conclusion:

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, affirming the learned Single Bench's decision. The court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to the reward money, as the policy guidelines require successful adjudication and realization of the demand, which did not occur in this case.

---