Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not maintainable against a society for service-related disputes where the service conditions are not governed by statutory rules and the relationship is purely contractual, lacking a public law element.

JUDGMENT :
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present petition has been preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure P-1) vide which the pay of the petitioner has been downgraded/reduced by refixing it w.e.f. 01.01.1996, order dated 01.07.2016 (Annexure P-2) whereby the pay of the petitioner for the post of Junior Assistant was retrospectively reduced, after her retirement. Further, for quashing of noting dated 28.02.2015 (Annexure P-3) vide which retiral benefits such as leave encashment and DCRG was wrongly calculated and paid to the petitioner, without issuing any notice or providing an opportunity of hearing. It is further prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued, directing the respondents to refix the pay of the petitioner, grant the benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme and sanction retiral benefits on correctly refixed pay.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on 12.01.1989 vide order dated 12.01.1989. She was granted the regular pay scale of Rs.950-1800 w.e.f. 01.04.1992, as per entry recorded in the Service book. The petitioner retired from service on 28.02.2015. Thereafter, the pay of the petitioner was reduced by refixing it vide impugned order dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure P-1), w.e.f. 01.04.1992. The petitioner had also exercised her option for being covered by the ACP Scheme, as instructed vide letter no.03.11.2006 (Annexure P-8) and thus was entitled to benefits of ACP on completion of 04, 09 and 14 years of service at the post of Clerk. Further, the option exercised by the petitioner was also accepted by the respondent-Society vide noting (Annexure P-4). As such, the respondents have erred in retrospectively downgrading the pay of the petitioner. Additionally, such refixation amounts to punishment and the respondent-Society ought to have issued a notice and provided an opportunity of personal hearing before implementing the same. Learned counsel further contended that the amount of gratuity is required to be calculated under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which works out to be Rs.6,78,530/-. However, the same has been wrongly calculated as Rs.3,61,330/- and disbursed to the petitioner. Further still, a recovery of Rs.18,993/- has been imposed on the petitioner based on wrong refixation of pay vide order dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure P-1) w.e.f. the year 1996. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had moved a representation (Annexure P-12) and issued a legal notice dated 23.03.2018 (Annexure P-10) but to no avail.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant on 27.08.2013, as discernible from Annexure R-3. She retired from the said post on 28.02.2015 (Annexure R-4) as per the Constitution/Regulations of District Red Cross Society, Patiala. Notably, in the year 2013, the petitioner, being the dealing hand, managed to get pay scale in accordance with notification dated 15.12.2011 applicable w.e.f. 01.12.2011. Subsequently, the petitioner herself submitted various applications (Annexure R-5 (colly)) seeking refixation of her pay and release of retiral benefits, when it came to the notice of the respondents that her pay was fixed as per instructions that were not adopted by the Red Cross Society, Patiala. In fact, no other employee except for the petitioner was granted benefit of the said in