Punjab and Haryana High Court Clarifies Limits on Judicial Intervention in Red Cross Employee Transfers
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a significant ruling, making it clear that it cannot interfere in the transfer of employees serving under Red Cross Haryana. This decision stems from the court's finding that the rules governing their service conditions are not statutory in nature, thereby limiting the scope for judicial review.
Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Transfers
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar passed these orders while dismissing two petitions filed by employees Ishank Kaushik and Sanjeev Kumar. The petitioners had contested their transfers within the Haryana state branch of the Red Cross, alleging arbitrariness, repeated relocations, and personal hardship.
Kaushik, a district training officer appointed in 2017, argued that frequent transfers over the years lacked administrative justification and violated service norms applicable to district-level posts. Both petitioners contended that the Red Cross, given its public welfare role and statutory backing under the Indian Red Cross Society Act, should be subject to judicial review in such employment matters.
Internal Rules Lack Statutory Force
However, Justice Brar observed that while Red Cross performs important public functions, the service conditions of its district-level employees are governed by non-statutory internal rules. The court noted that these rules had only been approved by the Governor in his role as president of the Indian Red Cross Society/St. John Ambulance, State Branch Haryana.
"As such, it is clear that these rules were merely meant for internal administration and not to create an enforceable right," the HC held in its detailed judgment.
Contractual Relationship Limits Writ Jurisdiction
The court emphasized that the relationship between the petitioners and the respondent society is essentially contractual in nature. As a result, disputes arising from employment contracts do not carry the necessary "public law element" required to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
"The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent-society is essentially contractual in nature," the court observed, recording that internal service rules lacking statutory force cannot be enforced through writ proceedings.
Distinction Between Statutory and Non-Statutory Rules
The HC provided a detailed explanation of why writ jurisdiction could not be invoked in this case. The court noted that Section 5 of the Indian Red Cross Society Act, 1920, bestows rulemaking powers, and exercising these powers, the managing committee framed the Indian Red Cross Society Branch Committee Rules, 2017, which were notified on December 15, 2017.
"These rules, undoubtedly, are statutory in nature but do not provide for service conditions of the employees of the district branches," the court clarified.
However, the rules relied upon by the petitioners—the Indian Red Cross Society/St. John Ambulance (India), District Red Cross Branch Staff Rules, 2017, notified on February 27, 2017—were not framed by exercising statutory rulemaking power.
"Writ jurisdiction of this court can only be invoked if the rules governing the service of the petitioner are statutory in nature," the HC held, ultimately dismissing both petitions.
Broader Implications for Employee Rights
This ruling establishes important precedent regarding the limits of judicial intervention in employment matters within organizations that operate under mixed statutory and non-statutory frameworks. The decision clarifies that even organizations performing public functions may have employment relationships that remain essentially contractual when governed by internal rules without statutory backing.
The judgment reinforces the principle that for employees to seek relief through writ jurisdiction, they must demonstrate that their service conditions are governed by rules with statutory force, rather than merely internal administrative guidelines approved through non-statutory processes.
