No Writ in Purely Private Service Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Petition Against Red Cross Society for Lack of Public Law Element
Case Name: Balvinder Kaur v. Secretary, Indian Red Cross Society Punjab State Branch & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 07 April 2026
Citation: CWP-10162-2018
Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not maintainable in service disputes arising out of purely private contracts of employment where no statutory rules govern service conditions and no public law element is involved.
Summary: The petitioner challenged retrospective reduction of her pay, refixation of salary after retirement, and consequential reduction in retiral benefits by the Red Cross Society.
It was argued that the impugned actions were arbitrary, punitive in nature, and taken without affording an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner also claimed entitlement to benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme and correct computation of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
The respondents contended that the petitioner had wrongly availed benefits of government instructions that were never adopted by the Society and that her pay had been corrected accordingly. It was further argued that the Red Cross Society is governed by its own internal rules and is not bound by government service rules.
The Court first examined the maintainability of the writ petition. It reiterated that writ jurisdiction can be invoked only where there exists a statutory element or a public law character in the dispute. Relying on settled jurisprudence, the Court held that rules framed by societies for internal management do not have statutory force.
The Court further emphasized that even if an institute performs public functions, service disputes arising from private contracts of employment do not acquire a public law character unless governed by statutory provisions.
It noted that the petitioner failed to establish that her service conditions were regulated by any statutory rules. The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent-Society was purely contractual and fell within the domain of private law.
The Court also clarified that mere adoption of certain government instructions by a society does not automatically confer the status of government employment or create enforceable legal rights under writ jurisdiction.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, holding that no public law element was involved. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies under the Payment of Gratuity Act or other available forums.