Judgment:
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. The petitioner retired on superannuation n 31.3.1998 as Secretary, District Red Cross Society, Sirsa. He has been paid all the retrial benefits in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court in the writ petition (CWP No. 15537 of 2001) filed by him earlier. However, according to him, he has not been paid some arrears with regard to revision of his pay scale in terms of 5th Fay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.1996.
2. It is the case of the respondents that the benefit of revision of pay scales in view of 5th Pay Commission was decided to be given w.e.f. 1.12.2000. Since the petitioner had already retired from service w.e.f. 31.3.1998, the petitioner is not entitled for the said benefit. It has categorically been stated in the impugned order dated 29.6.2006 (Annexure P-9) that no such benefit has been granted to any employee of the respondent-Society w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Since a conscious decision was taken to grant the said benefit to the employees of the respondent-Society w.e.f. 1.12.2000, therefore, the petitioner could not be given the said benefit. The said order was passed in pursuance of the legal notice dated 16.62006 (Annexure P-8) served by the petitioner upon the respondents.
3. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition for two reasons. Firstly that earlier for the same relief, the petitioner had filed a civil suit which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.9.2001 without any liberty to institute a fresh suit. This fact has been disclosed in the written statement filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, which has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In view of the said fact, the petitioner is debarred from claiming the same relief. It is the case of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order (Annexure P-9) was passed in terms of the liberty granted to the petitioner in CWP No. 15537 of 2001. It is also admitted position that the factum of withdrawal of the civil suit was not disclosed to the Court at that time. In vie of these facts, I am of the opinion that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be exercised in such situation.
4. Secondly, on merits also the petitioner has no claim. The respondent is a Red Cross Society. It is not a department of the Government. Counsel for the petitioner submits thfe, the respondent-Society is bound to grant the benefit of revision of pay scales to its employees w.e.f. 1.1.1996 on the analogy of revision of pay scale on the employer of the Haryana Government by the 5th Pay Commission. I do not find any force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The respondent-Red Cross Society is an independent body which is registered under the Societies Registration Act and it is for it to decide from which date they want to revise the pay scales of its employees. In this regard, a conscious decision has been taken by the respondent-Society to implement the revised pay scales for its employees in terms of 5th Pay Commission recommendations w.e.f. 1.12.2000.1 do not find that the said decision is in any way illegal, arbitrary or mala fide. In view of the said decision, the petitioner is not entitled for the arrears in accordance with revised pay scales in terms of the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission.
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.