Final reward under policy could not be released before proceedings closed; non-disbursement was not wilful disobedience.

The reward policy allowed final reward only after adjudication, appeal and revision proceedings were concluded and the relevant proceedings had closed. Because the assessee's dispute was still pending before the Division Bench and the departmental demand had not attained finality, the respondents had no discretion to release the final reward earlier. On that basis, non-disbursement of the reward was not deliberate or contumacious, and wilful disobedience was not established.

---

---

Issues: Whether there was wilful disobedience of the order directing disbursement of reward to the petitioners, and whether the petitioners could claim final reward before closure of the pending proceedings against the assessee.

Analysis: The reward policy permitted final reward only after conclusion of adjudication, appeal and revision proceedings and closure of the relevant proceedings. The material on record showed that the assessee's dispute was still pending before the Division Bench and that the demand raised by the department had not attained finality. The respondents also stated that final reward would be considered only upon closure of proceedings, and that no discretion existed to release the final reward earlier. In these circumstances, the non-disbursement of final reward could not be treated as deliberate or contumacious non-compliance with the earlier direction.

Conclusion: There was no wilful disobedience, and the contempt petition was not made out.

---