Government reward scheme claims require fair payment once departmental authorities quantify reward and approve the computation.

A reward claim under a government scheme was considered payable where departmental communications and affidavits had already quantified the amount attributable to information supplied by the petitioner. The Court rejected the department's shifting objections based on alleged non-filing of Form-A and want of further sanction, finding the Form-A objection factually incorrect and belated. It held that once the reward was computed and approved at the departmental level, the respondents could not deny payment on vague grounds or delay the scheme's operation unfairly. The petitioner was entitled to the quantified reward already determined, with further reward to be assessed on the petitioner's materials.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to payment of reward under the Government reward scheme on the basis of information supplied leading to tax recovery, and whether the respondents could deny payment on the grounds of pendency of appeals, alleged non-filing of Form-A, or want of further administrative sanction.

Analysis: The Court noted that the respondent-department had itself, through its communications and affidavits, determined that a quantified reward was payable to the petitioner on the basis of recoveries attributable to the information supplied by him. The Court found that the only consistently pleaded objection was that reward would be payable only on irrevocable realisation of revenue, but even on that premise the respondents had already accepted that a balance amount remained payable. The later objection that the petitioner had not filed Form-A was rejected as factually incorrect and also as a belated stand never raised earlier. The Court further held that once the departmental authorities had quantified the reward and the Commissioner had approved the computation, the respondents could not refuse payment on vague or shifting grounds. The reward scheme had to be applied fairly and without unreasonable delay.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to the quantified reward already determined by the department, and the respondents were directed to pay the amount with consequences for delay, while also determining any further reward payable after considering the petitioner's materials.

---