Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

[C] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus to NDDB for dishonouring specified terms & conditions of contract in terms of Section 15(a) of the Specific Relief Act 1963 (ANNEXURE M) titled "Who may obtain specific performance - any party thereto in terms of the aforesaid liability commitment"

& direct NDDB to pay the pending financial dues expeditiously of Rs.10,55,726- towards Annual Increment and Rs.10,59,020 towards Performance Linked Incentive; total of Rs.21,14,746 in terms of its Paras 38 & 67 of NDDB's Officers, Appointment, Pay & Allowances Regulations 1988 (relevant extract enclosed as ANNEXURE C).

4.4 The petitioner submitted that as part of the agreement, salary of the petitioner was fixed which is referred to in the agreement is Cost to the Company (CTC) and amongst other components of CTC, two components being performance linked incentive and annual increments were denied to the petitioner for the part of the period during which the petitioner was in service of respondent No.2.

4.5 The petitioner submitted that as per Sections 73 to 75 of the Indian Contract Act, entitlement of the petitioner cannot be denied as there was agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.2 under which she was entitled to claim CTC. In not acting in accordance with the Contract Act and denying the C/SCA/21187/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/10/2022 petitioner of her legitimate dues, respondent No.2 has acted in a fashion which will not comply with the principles of natural justice. 4.6 The petitioner drew attention of this Court to the contents of Annexure-A being "Contractual Appointment on Fixed Tenure" and particularly drew attention of this Court to Clauses-6, 7 and 8 and submitted that her claim is based on these clauses. The petitioner also drew attention of this Court to page No.87, which is a salary slip giving out 10 components of her salary as per the agreement, which included amongst other components also, performance linked incentive. It is submitted that services of the petitioner and the benefit of her service to respondent No.2-Board cannot be doubted in view of the fact that IDMC, a subsidiary of respondent No.2-Board, at the relevant time, was not doing so well and therefore, expertise of the petitioner was found necessary and therefore, the petitioner was offered to shift to IDMC and even after shifting to IDMC, she has performed her duty to the expectations of IDMC, because of which IDMC was greatly benefited.

4.8 During the period aforementioned with the NDDB, the petitioner was paid with integral component of CTC, where variable components, viz. Performance Linked Incentive (PLI) was up to 7.5% of CTC for the first year and enhanced up to 10% of the CTC in subsequent years whereas Annual Increment during this period was to be paid at the rate of 5% to 15% of CTC. It is submitted that the petitioner's performance was never questioned by the administration and was much appreciated and the previous Reporting Officer of the petitioner, at various forums, was vocal about outstanding performance of the petitioner. But, the trouble grew when Reporting Officer changed and thereafter, the petitioner has been targeted for the reasons which the petitioner has already mentioned.

5. As against this, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Dhaval Dave for respondent No.2-Board submitted that the Petitioner, who was appointed contractually in the set up of respondent No.2 as Head-HRD for fixed tenure, seeks to enforce her claim for variable components of her CTC, i.e. annual increment and performance linked incentives emanating from the terms and conditions of her letter of appointment dated November 8, 2010. the nature of Right sought to be enforced by the Petitioner are purely contractual in nature, the Proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be filed for the enforcement of C/SCA/21187/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/10/2022 fundamental rights and / or legal rights which are not of private character, the rights of the Petitioner against Respondent No. 2 are governed by terms and conditions of a contract. 5.1 It is submitted that even within the contract between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2, the Petitioner cannot claim grant of variable pay, i.e. annual increment and performance linked incentive, as a matter of right as they are depending upon the performance of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has no vested right in absolute terms to claim such performance-based incentives. the Petitioner is not even having an absolute contractual right the enforcement of which can be sought in writ proceedings. 5.2 It is submitted that the Petitioner was appointed as Head-HRD under a communication November 8, 2010 with effect from November 26, 2010. The said appointment was for the fixed period of 5 years to be computed from the date of joining by the Petitioner or attaining the age of 60 years, whichever was to happen first. As per the terms and conditions of her appointment, the Petitioner would be entitled to variable components of her pay based on her performance on KRA, after review by the competent authority. Further, since the said components were payable annually, finalise her KRAs in advance at the commencement of the appraisal period in consultation with her reporting officer and get them approved. Subsequently, she was required to get her C/SCA/21187/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/10/2022 performance evaluated on an annual basis. Accordingly, the Petitioner was required to submit her papers for review in prescribed format for a period from December 1 to November 30 of the preceding year.