JUDGMENT T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. O.P. No. 12775 of 1991 is the leading case and I shall set forth the facts therein in the first instance. 2. The petitioner is a member of the Indian Police Service allotted to the Kerala Cadre. He was the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Northern Range at Kozhikode at the relevant time namely February 1989. 3. On February 24,1989, a team of police officials under the leadership and guidance of the petitioner effected seizure of 900 contraband gold biscuits (stated to be worth about Rs. 3.5 crores) from a house in Chevayur, a suburb of Kozhikode, where they were kept concealed in a heap of coconuts, besides a Maruti car used for transport of the gold. A Crime Case No. 70 of 1989, for offences under Section 101 of the Customs Act and Section 41(1)(a) Cr. P.C. was registered in the Nadakkavu police station in Kozhikode City. Based on information gathered at the time of investigation, further seizure of 1596 gold biscuits (valued approximately at Rs. 6.5 crores) was effected by the customs authorities on the next day, February 25,1989 in Kannur District. 4. The Government of India had evolved a scheme for grant of reward to informers and government servants in the case of seizures, evasion of payment of duty and the like detected under the provisions of the Customs Act. The Central Excises and Salt Act, the Gold Control Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The quantum of reward as well as the eligibility criteria are laid down in the guidelines, a copy of which is Ext. P 1. It is the eligibility of the petitioner to participate in the reward in respect of the aforesaid seizure that form the bone of contention in this writ petition. To cut a long story short, the petitioner's claim for reward was rejected by the Government of India by their communications Exts. P 5, and P 6 and P 7 in the view that officers higher in rank than Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise and officers of equivalent rank in other departments are not eligible for reward. The petitioner thus lost his claim, though he had spearheaded and masterminded the operations, which resulted in the seizure of the large quantity of contraband gold. 5. The petitioner's role in the seizure cannot be belittled. The petitioner thus lost his claim, though he had spearheaded and masterminded the operations, which resulted in the seizure of the large quantity of contraband gold. 5. The petitioner's role in the seizure cannot be belittled. In fact it was not disputed either in the counter-affidavit or before me at the hearing, the only contention being based on the terms of the guidelines Ext. P 1. The petitioner had set forth the part played by him in the seizure as follows in the communication to the respondents, a copy of which is annexed to his representation Ext. P 4:- ROLE PLAYED BY OFFICERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SEIZURE OF CONTRABAND GOLD ON 24-2-1989 FROM VENGERI, CALICUT DIST., KERALA NO. 1 R. PADMANBHAN, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Northern Range Calicut. Recruited informers, worked out information, located the house of concealment of gold, arranged surveillance from 22-2-1989 till the seizure, selected proper officers to act at the appropriate time, gave the leader of the party details of the exact location of the house of concealment of contraband and the manner to act, gave direction to the leader to keep constant touch through V.M.F. till effecting seizure, kept monitoring the operation through VHF, after seizure gave directions to locate the car C.K.N. 9126 and the individuals who are suspected to have transported the contraband goods in the said house. Arranged safe custody of the contraband goods and the accused. Kept liaison with the Customs regarding handing over the seized goods, case records and the accused." The pivotal role played by him has been recognised and accepted by the Collector of Customs in his letter to the Government of India, dated July 4, 1989, appearing at page 172 of the file produced before me. What role the petitioner had played is again succinctly set out in Ext. P 3, an article which appeared in the Week magazine of April 2-8,1989 which I shall reproduce as it accurately reflects the course of events (though in the normal course, I will not be inclined to cull out facts from newspaper or magazine articles). "On February 22, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Kerala), R. Padmanabhan, was given the address of a house, about seven kilometers from Calicut, where the gold which was landed the previous night was concealed. He was also informed that a blue Maruti car would be parked in front of the house. "On February 22, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Kerala), R. Padmanabhan, was given the address of a house, about seven kilometers from Calicut, where the gold which was landed the previous night was concealed. He was also informed that a blue Maruti car would be parked in front of the house. The DIG put two Circle Inspectors and a posse of policeman on the trail, but the team did not raid the house during daytime for fear of creating a commotion. Instead, it kept the house under surveillance and entered the house after dusk. Its occupant Abdurahiman, a coconut trader, led the policemen to the nine jackets concealed under a heap of coconuts. They contained 900 slabs of gold - the biggest ever seizure by the Kerala Police - a part of the consignment landed the previous night. Abdurahiman then directed the police team to the city hideout of four young men, from Kasargode and Cannanore districts, who were to have carried part of the gold. It was then that the police traced the kingpin of the smugglers, K.P. Majid of Calicut, who was related to Abdurahiman. But before the police could act on the new leads, the Customs had approached the DIG. The gold, vehicles and five people taken into custody were handed to the Customs. Within a few hours, Customs men intercepted a Contessa car at distant Irikkur in Cannanore district and came up with a haul of 1,600 gold slabs. The car belonged to Ismail, father of one of the young men taken into custody earlier." These facts are not in dispute, but only the eligibility of the petitioner for the reward. 6. The petitioner's case is that despite all this, awards have been distributed to the informers, police officers and others, but not to the petitioner, in the view that he is not eligible for it. It is this denial of the reward that is challenged by the Writ Petition O.P. No. 12775 of 1991. 7. The petitioner in the other Writ Petition O.P. No. 11947 of 1991 was the Circle Inspector of Police who participated in the raid and seizure. He has been awarded Rs. one lakh for his part in the operations. He is dissatisfied with it and has filed O.P. No. 11947 of 1991 clamouring for more. 8. O.P. No. 12775 of 1991. The petitioner in the other Writ Petition O.P. No. 11947 of 1991 was the Circle Inspector of Police who participated in the raid and seizure. He has been awarded Rs. one lakh for his part in the operations. He is dissatisfied with it and has filed O.P. No. 11947 of 1991 clamouring for more. 8. O.P. No. 12775 of 1991. The decision of this case turns on the terms of Ext. P 1 which contains the guidelines for the grant of rewards in such cases at the relevant time. According to the respondents, the terms of this policy do not entitle the petitioner to the reward. Needless to say, so long as the guidelines are in force, ad hoc departures therefrom are not permissible and a person cannot be denied the reward, if otherwise, he is eligible for it under Ext. P1, while others are being granted the same. I do not think this proposition is capable of dispute in a country governed by the rule of law, but if authority be needed, see the observation in paragraph 37 in C.S.S. Motor Service v. Madras State - AIR 1953 Madras 279 (Rajamannar, C.J. and Venkatarama Aiyar, J). I shall therefore examine the relevant provisions of Ext. P 1. 9. Clause 3.1 of Ext. P 1 specifies the quantum of reward as upto 20% of the estimated market value of the contraband goods seized. Clause 4 states that reward is purely an ex gratia payment, which, subject to the guidelines, may be granted in the absolute discretion of the competent authority and cannot be claimed by anyone as a matter of right. But as mentioned by me earlier, the fact that it is an ex gratia payment does not imply that it can be refused, if otherwise the person is eligible for it under the guidelines. You cannot grant it to some and refuse it to others merely because the matter is one of discretion. The discretion has to be exercised reasonably and in the same manner for all. Vide in this connection Govinda Pillai v. Secretary, Central Board of Excise, 1989 (1) KLT 345 and paragraphs 14 and 16 of the Judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1387 of 1992. The discretion has to be exercised reasonably and in the same manner for all. Vide in this connection Govinda Pillai v. Secretary, Central Board of Excise, 1989 (1) KLT 345 and paragraphs 14 and 16 of the Judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1387 of 1992. But this question of refusal on the ground of the reward being ex gratia does not loom large in this case, because the petitioner has been denied the reward not in exercise of the discretion under clause 4, but only because he was held ineligible for it under Ext. P 1. Therefore it is necessary for me to consider only the question of eligibility and none else. 10. As to who are the persons eligible for the reward is laid down in clause 7 and on its interpretation lies the answer to the question regarding the petitioner's eligibility. It says : "7. To whom reward may be paid : 7.1 Ordinarily, informers and Government servants (upto the level of Group 'A' Superintendent/Assistant Collectors of Customs and Central Excise/Assistant Directors will be eligible for reward depending on the contribution made by them as a team as well as individually with regard to the collection of intelligence, surveillance, effecting of seizure etc. Due credit should be given to the staff employed on investigation of persons involved other than carries of contraband goods etc. 7.2. Group 'A' Officers above the level of Assistant Collector/Assistant Director will not be eligible for reward on the basis of value of seizure etc. However, in appropriate cases Government may consider in consultation with CCA/ DCRI/Director Anti evasion, the grant of lumpsum payment/advance increments and/or recognition, in any other manner of the service rendered by them for which purpose the Heads of the Department should forward their recommendations to the aforementioned officers with a copy to the Ministry." Clause 7.2. shows that group 'A' officers above the level of Assistant Collectors/Assistant Director will not be eligible on the basis of value of seizure but government may consider grant of lump-sum payment etc. in appropriate cases. Therefore, even group 'A' officers of the level mentioned, are not totally barred from the reward, the clause only says that it may take a different shape and it may be on a different basis. The assumption made by the respondents (in Ext. in appropriate cases. Therefore, even group 'A' officers of the level mentioned, are not totally barred from the reward, the clause only says that it may take a different shape and it may be on a different basis. The assumption made by the respondents (in Ext. P 7) that officers higher in rank than Assistant Collector are not eligible for reward is not thus warranted by the clause. Therefore and even assuming that the petitioner is an officer of the category mentioned in clause 7.2 it will not be correct to say that a reward to him is totally taboo. He is entitled to a reward, but on a different basis. I may state however that it is unnecessary for me to rest my decision on this view, as I feel that clause 7.2 does not bear out the view which the respondents have chosen to take of it. 11. The more fundamental question which Shri N.N. Venkatachalam, counsel for the petitioner has raised is that the petitioner is not an officer of the kind mentioned in clause 7.2 namely a group 'A' officer of a level above Assistant Collector/Assistant Director and therefore he is not ineligible for reward under the clause. 12. The petitioner is a member of the Indian Police Service, an All India Service constituted under Section 2 of the All India Service Act, 1951. No provision was pointed out to me either in this Act or in any of the Rules framed thereunder classifying the members of the Indian Police Service into groups. But such a classification into groups A, B, C and D exists in the Central Civil Services described in the Schedule to the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 to which reference was made before me. But these rules do not apply to any member of All India Services by virtue of their exclusion therefrom under Rule 3(c). So far as members of the All India Services are concerned, no classification can therefore apply, if at all only to those officers who fall in group A as under the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules aforesaid and not to others. The alleged ineligibility for reward can, on the express terms of clause 7.2, be only for those who are in group A as under these Rules, above the level of Assistant Collector/Assistant Director. The alleged ineligibility for reward can, on the express terms of clause 7.2, be only for those who are in group A as under these Rules, above the level of Assistant Collector/Assistant Director. The petitioner, a member of an All India Service is not comprehended within the bar created by clause 7.2. 13. I am also of the view that this clause applies only to officers in the concerned department of the Government of India and not to others. The clause does not speak of any equivalent level of officers to Assistant Collector/Assistant Director, in other departments. An Assistant Collector has reference to a functionary exercising power tinder the Customs Act, the Central Excises and Salt Act and the Gold Control Act, while an Assistant Director is an officer enforcing the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. (These are the four Acts covered by Ext. P1). Clause 7.2 speaks only of such officers, and not of others in other departments. The level mentioned is the level in the hierarchy in the concerned department, and not elsewhere. No rule of equivalence has been placed before me to show as to what categories, in other departments fall in the level of Assistant Collectors/Assistant Directors. Evidently clause 7.2 is intended to exclude, if at all, only the officers above the level mentioned in the concerned department from being rewarded on the basis of the value of the seizure, and not others. 14. This reasoning of mine, in the preceding two paragraphs is fortified by the reward made by the respondents themselves to two members of All India Service in respect of a seizure under the Customs Act in the Lakshadweep Islands. A ship M.V. AL-Fahad was grounded in the lagoon of the Suheli island on January 7, 1989, from which 12,000 tolas of gold and 105 silver ingots weighing 31 to 33 kgs. all contraband - were seized in an operation in which the Collector - cum - Development Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police of the Lakshadeep Island participated, both being members of All India Services. The Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Kochi by his proceedings C. No. VIII/48/315/89-Cus. Reward dated February 26,1991, made rewards to these officers, amongst others, though going by the contentions of the respondents before me, they were group 'A' officers above the level of officers mentioned in clause 7.2 of Ext. P 1. The Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Kochi by his proceedings C. No. VIII/48/315/89-Cus. Reward dated February 26,1991, made rewards to these officers, amongst others, though going by the contentions of the respondents before me, they were group 'A' officers above the level of officers mentioned in clause 7.2 of Ext. P 1. The petitioner had made the necessary averments and filed C.M.P. No. 24329 of 1993 for direction to the respondents to produce the file relating to this reward. The file so produced at the hearing disclosed the reward to the All India Service officers. The respondents have no explanation for this. This reward therefore positively establishes that rewards to members of other services, especially All India Services is not taboo under clause 7.2 of Ext. P 1. 15. The view taken in Ext. P 7 is thus based on an erroneous premise. Exts. P 5, P 6 and P 7 rejecting the petitioner's claim for reward are therefore unsustainable and have to be quashed. Since no other impediment exists against the petitioner's claim, the respondents have to consider the petitioner's claim on merits and fix the quantum of the reward, taking into account the cardinal role he has played in the operations. 16. I shall now take up the other case, O.P. No. 11947 of 1991. The petitioner therein was the Circle Inspector who carried out the operations on February 24, 1989. He has been awarded an amount of Rs. one lakh. His claim for a larger amount was rejected by the proceedings Ext. P 4, on the ground that only a reward of not more than Rs. one lakh could be sanctioned to an individual officer in a single case. This appears to be a wrong premise. There is no such limit prescribed in the guidelines marked Ext. P 1 in O.P. No. 12775 of 1991, which was in force on the relevant date. Such a limit was prescribed only in a subsequent order Ext. P 2 dated April 13,1989. But that has no application to the case on hand as the seizure was much earlier on February 24,1989. The matter has therefore be reconsidered on the basis of the guidelines Ext. P 1 in O.P. No. 12775 of 1991 uninhibited by anything stated in Ext. P 2. The original petitions are therefore disposed of as follows : O.P. No. 12775 of 1991 is allowed. The matter has therefore be reconsidered on the basis of the guidelines Ext. P 1 in O.P. No. 12775 of 1991 uninhibited by anything stated in Ext. P 2. The original petitions are therefore disposed of as follows : O.P. No. 12775 of 1991 is allowed. The proceedings Exts. P 5, P 6 and P 7 are quashed. The petitioner is held eligible for the reward under Ext. P 1. The respondents shall grant the petitioner the reward due to him after fixing the quantum in accordance with Ext. P 1, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. O.P No. 11947 of 1991 is allowed to the limited extent of quashing Ext. P 4. The respondents shall consider the petitioner's representation Ext. P 3 afresh and pass orders thereon within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There will be no order as to costs.