Concluded subsidy entitlement and Article 14 parity bar a later state refusal based on internal approval objections

Entitlement under a subsidy scheme, once conclusively determined and quantified, cannot be withheld by the State on a later objection of missing finance department concurrence or cabinet approval where earlier administrative and judicial directions required implementation. The text also notes that differential treatment between similarly placed beneficiaries offends Article 14 in a welfare subsidy context, and that negative equality does not apply where the comparator payment is not shown to be illegal. The State's internal approval objections are therefore treated as insufficient to defeat a concluded entitlement.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to release of the export subsidy under the Government Resolution dated 31 July 2018, and whether the State could refuse payment on the ground of absence of finance department concurrence or cabinet approval despite earlier orders and parity with similarly placed beneficiaries.

Analysis: The claim for subsidy had already been accepted in the prior administrative determination and the payable amount had been quantified. Earlier judicial directions had required implementation of that determination, and the refusal to disburse was not sustained. The objection based on the Rules of Business was rejected because, on the facts, the State could not sit in review over a concluded entitlement and could not withhold payment after the Court had directed implementation. The petitioner stood on the same footing as another beneficiary who had already been paid, and differential treatment in a welfare subsidy scheme would offend Article 14. The plea of negative equality was held inapplicable because the payment made in the comparator case was not shown to be illegal.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to the export subsidy and the State was directed to release the quantified amount in its favour.

Ratio Decidendi: Where entitlement under a subsidy scheme has been conclusively determined and similarly placed beneficiaries have been paid pursuant to subsisting judicial orders, the State cannot deny payment on a later plea of internal administrative approval, and unequal treatment in such a welfare scheme is contrary to Article 14.

---