Ex gratia informer reward depends on current guidelines, and mandamus cannot compel discretionary payment without a legal right.

Reward under an ex gratia customs informer scheme is governed by the guidelines in force when the claim is considered, not by an earlier policy if no vested right has accrued. Where the revised scheme requires payment only after actual realisation of duty, penalty, or fine, a claim pressed after adjudication must satisfy that requirement. A writ of mandamus cannot compel payment of a discretionary reward unless there is a corresponding legal right and enforceable duty, which the scheme expressly negatived. The informer therefore had no enforceable right to immediate payment under the earlier guidelines.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended reward guidelines of 30-3-1989 governed the claim for informer's reward made after the customs adjudication in 1993. (ii) Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to compel payment of a quantified reward as a matter of right.

Issue (i): Whether the amended reward guidelines of 30-3-1989 governed the claim for informer's reward made after the customs adjudication in 1993.

Analysis: The reward scheme treated reward as an ex gratia payment, to be considered only in accordance with the guidelines in force at the time of consideration and grant. The claim was first pressed only after the adjudication order of 5-3-1993, so the relevant policy was the amended one, which required final reward to be paid only after actual realisation of duty, penalty, or fine. No vested right had accrued under the earlier policy.

Conclusion: The amended guidelines applied, and the claim could not be tested under the unamended policy.

Issue (ii): Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to compel payment of a quantified reward as a matter of right.

Analysis: The governing scheme made reward dependent on the absolute discretion of the competent authority and expressly negatived any claim as of right. A mandamus lies only to enforce a legal duty backed by a corresponding legal right, which was absent here. The courts below had also directed payment without the Department having realised the duty, fine, or penalty contemplated by the revised policy.

Conclusion: No writ of mandamus could be issued to compel payment of the reward.

Final Conclusion: The informer had no enforceable legal right to the claimed reward, and the High Court's directions for payment were unsustainable; the Union's appeal succeeded and the informer's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Reward payable under an ex gratia government scheme is governed by the policy in force when the claim is considered, and in the absence of a statutory right, mandamus cannot compel payment of a discretionary reward.

---