The judgment emphasizes the need for adjudication of contractual disputes involving disputed facts through evidence and the requirement for a proper civil suit for adjudication, especially when issues of limitation are raised.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. RULE. Learned Advocate Mr. Udit Vyas waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 2.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying inter-alia as under:

“(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the Respondent’s authority to release Rs. 48,00,473 (calculated as on 01 May 2018) else the relevant higher amount including the compounded interest applicable for the period as and when directed to be paid then within reasonable time; this Court may find it deemed and proper.

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus to NDDB for dishonouring specified terms and 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” and 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 and 67 of NDDB’s Officers, Appointment, Pay and Allowances Regulations 1988 (relevant extract enclosed as ANNEXURE C).

(D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Honourable Court be kindly pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of Para B above. “Preventive relief” is requested for the basic amount of Rs. 21,14,746/- due in terms of Section 36 of The Specific Relief Act, 1963 titled “Preventive Relief how granted.”

(E) Your Lordship may be pleased to direct NDDB to make the payment of Rs. 48,00,473 (calculated as on 01 May 2018) else the relevant higher amount including the compounded interest applicable for the period as and when directed to be paid then within reasonable time; as per the Central Government’s permissible penal interest @ 18% to the Petitioner in view of Section 74 of Indian Contract Act 1872 titled “Compensation for breach of contract where penalty stipulated for”, Section 21(1) of The Specific Relief Act 1963 titled “Power to award compensation in certain cases” for the total inaction on part of NDDB’s management despite written appeals and emails of year 2013 and personal meetings with different Chairmen on various occasions besides in harmony with Section 21(1) of The Specific Relief Act 1963 (enclosed as ANNEXURE M), Section 74 of Indian Contract Act 1872 and this damage is prayed upon in terms of Section 40 of The Specific Relief Act 1963 (ANNEXURE M) titled “Damages in lieu of, or in addition to, injunction.”

3. The petitioner has appeared Party-in-Person as she is granted competency certificate under Rule 31 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 dated 31.12.2018, for the aforesaid reason only the prayer clause is reproduced in the proceeding.

4. The case of the petitioner is essentially for seeking direction to respondent No. 2-National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) to make payment to the petitioner of the dues, which the petitioner claims to be payable to her in view of services rendered by the petitioner with respondent No. 2-Board. It is submitted that claim is a component of her total salary which was not paid to the petitioner at the relevant time.

4.1 It is submitted that respondent No. 2 is a Dairy Development Board, which is constituted under a statute being National Dairy Development Board Act, 1987 and considering nature of constitution and functioning of the Board, the Board is amenable to writ jurisdiction. It is submitted that the Board being a State is expected to act in a free and fair manner and therefore, has no authority to withhold dues which are legally payable to the petitioner.

4.2 The petitioner thereafter proceeded to make submissions with regard to previous litigation which was pertaining to her termination from IDMC (Indian Dairy Machinery Company Limited), which is a subsidiary of respondent No. 2-Boar