Mandamus issued to decide pending claims for monetary rewards for meritorious service within a time-bound period.

The petitioner, a retired Income Tax Officer, sought a writ of mandamus against the respondent authorities for their failure to grant him a monetary reward for meritorious service

During his tenure, the petitioner detected significant tax defaults (TDS) involving major entities like Idea Cellular Ltd. and Bharti Airtel Ltd., leading to the recovery of approximately Rs. 3400 lakhs in revenue

Consequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Bhopal, recommended him for the maximum reward under the CBDT Circular dated 30.05.2007

Despite this recommendation made as early as 2010 and subsequent RTI responses in 2020 confirming the claim was "under process," the respondents failed to pass a final order, prompting this petition

1. Whether the prolonged and unexplained inaction of the respondent authorities in deciding the petitioner’s reward claim under the CBDT Guidelines constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power.

2. Whether the court should direct a time-bound disposal of the pending representation and recommendation regarding the petitioner's entitlement to a monetary reward.

The Court relied on the Reward Guidelines framed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) via Circular No. F. No. 287/79/2005-IT (INV.II) dated 30.05.2007, specifically Para 7.1 regarding residual powers and the criteria for rewarding officers for exceptional intelligence gathering and revenue recovery

The court also implicitly applied the administrative law principle of 'duty to act,' which requires competent authorities to decide pending representations within a reasonable timeframe

The Court observed that the petitioner’s claim was not a mere assertion but was backed by an official recommendation from the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Bhopal, dated 16.07.2010

It noted the respondents' acknowledgement via RTI in 2020 that the matter was still "under process" in the Technical Section, confirming that the claim had neither been rejected nor finalized for over a decade

During the hearing, the respondents did not contest the merits but suggested that a direction be issued to the competent authority (Respondent No. 2) to finalize the pending representation

The Court found the delay to be "indefinite" and "unexplained," necessitating judicial intervention to ensure the administrative process reaches its logical conclusion

Respondent No. 2 was ordered to consider the petitioner’s claim and pass a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with the law within 45 days of receipt

The holding emphasizes that statutory/administrative claims for service rewards must be adjudicated within a reasonable period, especially when supported by competent recommendations