JUDGMENT : N. Nagaresh, J. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Inspector in the 4 th respondent-Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), Palakkad. The petitioner seeks to set aside Ext.P5 to the extent it holds that the employees of SPCA are not eligible for retirement benefits and further entitled, on humanitarian grounds, only Ex-gratia allowance of Rs.8,100/- per month. The petitioner also seeks to set aside Ext.P13 order and Ext.P22 letter. 2. The petitioner states that the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Palakkad comes under the Government of Kerala, Agriculture (Animal Husbandry) Department. It is the Department which shall accord sanction for the creation of the post of Junior Inspector. The petitioner was promoted as Senior Inspector in 1998. The petitioner retired from service as Senior Inspector on 30.09.2015. 3. The petitioner states that while working under the SPCA, the petitioner was granted the benefit of salary on Pay Scale, the Higher Grade and all other benefits available to a Government Servant, including the benefit of Pay Revisions effected from time to time. 4. However, in Ext.P5 order, the Government stated that since the employees of the SPCA are not eligible for retirement benefits as per EPF / Kerala Service Rules / NPS , lumpsum Ex-gratia allowance of Rs.8,100/- per month may be sanctioned to them on humanitarian grounds. The petitioner would submit that Ext.P5 is highly arbitrary and illegal. 5. The 1 st respondent has been treating the employees of SPCA as Government employees and have been conferring benefits like time bound Higher Grade, Pay Revision, Dearness Allowance, HRA, CCA, TA, etc. After extracting the work of a regular employee in service, the respondents cannot contend that retirement benefits cannot be granted to the SPCA employees. 6. The petitioner states that the petitioner was granted terminal benefits after his retirement. For granting terminal benefits to the petitioner, the SPCA requested the Government to sanction Rs.4,34,815/- from the Grant-in-Aid Fund. Sanction was accorded for payment of Rs.7,00,000/- towards DCRG, Terminal Surrender for 300 days amounting to Rs.4,34,810/-, Ex-gratia Allowance of Rs.56,700/- and again Ex-gratia Allowance for the period from May, 2016 to March, 2017 for an amount of Rs.89,100/-. 7. For granting terminal benefits to the petitioner, the SPCA requested the Government to sanction Rs.4,34,815/- from the Grant-in-Aid Fund. Sanction was accorded for payment of Rs.7,00,000/- towards DCRG, Terminal Surrender for 300 days amounting to Rs.4,34,810/-, Ex-gratia Allowance of Rs.56,700/- and again Ex-gratia Allowance for the period from May, 2016 to March, 2017 for an amount of Rs.89,100/-. 7. While so, the Government issued Ext.P13 order dated 08.12.2016 stating that SPCA employees are not eligible for retirement benefits as per EPF / Kerala Service Rules / NPS and they are entitled only for a lumpsum Ex- gratia Allowance of Rs.8,100/- per month on humanitarian grounds. The 2 nd respondent was directed to recover amounts given to the petitioner as Terminal Surrender. The petitioner would submit that Ext.P13 order is highly illegal and unsustainable. After according sanction for payment of an amount of Rs.12,80,610/- to the petitioner, the respondents are not justified in effecting recovery. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment in Civil Appeal No.3153/2022 has held that payment of Gratuity is applicable to Anganwadi Teachers. Similarly, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the judgment dated dated 10.04.2013 in W.P.(C) No.961/2011 has held that pension and Gratuity are separate retiral benefits and right to Gratuity is a statutory right. The respondents are therefore compellable to pay the petitioner DCRG with 12% interest, which is legitimately fallen due, contends the petitioner. 9. Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the 1 st respondent and resisted the writ petition. On behalf of the 1 st respondent, it is submitted that SPCA staff are not appointed as per the General Rules applicable to the Government servants. The petitioner was appointed by the Board of Director of the Society. The petitioner is not governed by Kerala Service Rules. 10. The Government Pleader further submitted that SPCA is not a Government Institution but only a Grant-in-Aid Institution. The Government contributes a share of the salary expenses as they are not Government servants. Similarly, revision of pay and allowances allowed to Government Servants vide G.O.(P) dated 25.03.2006, was sanctioned in the year 2010. 11. The Government Pleader further submitted that based on the prevailing Government Orders, specific benefits under the Kerala Service Rules are granted to staff similar to applicants. The EPF is not made applicable to the SPCA since there are only two or three staff in each District for the SPCA. 11. The Government Pleader further submitted that based on the prevailing Government Orders, specific benefits under the Kerala Service Rules are granted to staff similar to applicants. The EPF is not made applicable to the SPCA since there are only two or three staff in each District for the SPCA. The SPCA staff are not appointed as per Rules applicable to the Government servants. Retirement age is 58 in the case of SPCA staff. They are not eligible for pension like Government servants. The Government had by oversight granted an erroneous benefit to the petitioner. When the same was noted, the amount was sought to be recovered. 12. The Government Pleader further submitted that all the employees who are paid from the funds of the District Panchayat cannot be treated as Government servants and given pensionary benefits. Prior to 09.09.2015, even Ex-gratia allowance was not paid to the staff of SPCA. The staff of SPCA are staff of a Society and they are not Government servants or employees under the Local Self Government Institution. The writ petition is therefore without any merit and it is liable to be dismissed. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent. 14. The issue involved in the writ petition is the applicability of Service Rules relating to the petitioner in the matter of payment of terminal benefits to the employees of the SPCA. It is not disputed that the SPCA is a Society. The contention of the petitioner is that it is a Society established by the Government and functioning under the strict control of the Government. 15. Ext.P1 Government Order would evidence that it is the Government of Kerala which is sanctioning creation of posts in the SPCA. Ext.P2 would indicate that the Government has ordered benefit of revision of scales of pay to the employees of SPCA including grade promotion. Exts.P3 and P4 Government Orders would show that the Government has been according sanction for the revision of pay and allowances to the SPCA. 16. Some benefits of 9 th Pay Revision Order was sanctioned to the staff of the SPCA, as can be seen from Ext.P5. Exts.P3 and P4 Government Orders would show that the Government has been according sanction for the revision of pay and allowances to the SPCA. 16. Some benefits of 9 th Pay Revision Order was sanctioned to the staff of the SPCA, as can be seen from Ext.P5. The benefit of 9 th Pay Revision was granted to the petitioner also on a specific order, G.O.(Rt) dated 29.04.2016 (Ext.P9), issued by the Government. Based on these facts, the petitioner would urge that the petitioner should be treated at par with Government servants and the service conditions / service benefits applicable to Government servants should be paid to the petitioner also, especially in the matter of terminal benefits including DCRG and pension. 17. Merely because the Government has adopted some of the provisions including Pay Revision applicable to the Government servants and has accorded sanction to the SPCA to make payments to their employees in that line, cannot make the SPCA employees at par with the Government servants. The SPCA is a registered Society. The establishment of SPCA as a Society would itself indicate that the functioning of the Society should stand distinct from the functioning of the Government. 18. When a Society is formed at the initiative of the Government, then the service conditions of the employees of the Society will be decided by the Society / Managing Committee of the Society itself. It is based on the decision of the Society that salary, pay revision, gratuity, pension, etc. to its employees have to be paid. If SPCA is functioning under the Government of Kerala, it may require the sanction of the Government of Kerala for extending certain service benefits to its employees. But, that will not give a right to the employees to claim payment at par with the Government servants. Various Government Orders and Rules relating to payment of salary / terminal benefits to make applicable to the SPCA, the SPCA shall adopt those Rules or provisions. As long as SPCA has not adopted the benefits like statutory pension / NPS to the employees of the SPCA, the petitioner will not be justified in claiming the benefits similar to the benefits enjoyed by the Government servants. 19. As long as SPCA has not adopted the benefits like statutory pension / NPS to the employees of the SPCA, the petitioner will not be justified in claiming the benefits similar to the benefits enjoyed by the Government servants. 19. Counsel for the petitioner would rely on the judgment in Rajkaran Singh and others v. Union of India and others [SLP (Civil) No.30976 of 2017], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that denial of pensionary benefits to the appellants therein is not tenable or justifiable in the eyes of law as the same is arbitrary and violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 20. I have perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.30976 of 2017 . The issue of payment of terminal benefits / pensionary benefits arose in the said judgment in respect of a Compulsory Saving Scheme Deposits Fund of the Special Frontier Force. The Special Frontier Force is a paramilitary force. The Hon’ble Apex Court considered the issues involved therein and came to the conclusion that denial of pensionary benefits solely on the basis of their temporary status without due consideration of these factors appears to be an over-signification of their employment relationship. 21. It is to be noted that the employees concerned in the said judgment were employees working under the Special Frontier Force itself. That was not a case of employees of any Society or any distinct entity. What has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgment is that merely because persons are working with a temporary status, without consideration of various factors, pensionary benefits cannot be denied to them. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.30976 of 2017 cannot be applied in the facts of the case. 22. Counsel for the petitioner further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Arunchandra Chhaganlal Shah v. State of Gujarat [Special Civil Application No.1127/2003]. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat directed that the petitioners therein shall be treated as employees of the State Government and shall be entitled to pensionary benefits and retiral benefits which are available to the employees of the State Government. 23. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat directed that the petitioners therein shall be treated as employees of the State Government and shall be entitled to pensionary benefits and retiral benefits which are available to the employees of the State Government. 23. In the said judgment, what was dealt with by the High Court was the service conditions of employees under the Small Farmers Development Agency, Drought Area Programme Agency and Small Farmers and Agricultural Labourers Agency during the 4 th and 5 th Year Plan. Those agencies were established under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. The petitioner would urge that since those agencies are also Societies and SPCA is also a Society, the judgment of the Gujarat High Court would squarely apply to the petitioner. 24. A perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat would indicate that in the case of those agencies at the time of floating the Scheme by the Government of India, a policy decision was taken that the service conditions of these employees will be on par with that of the State Government employees. It is based on that policy decision that the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat directed to pay benefits equivalent to the benefits applicable to the Government servants in the said writ petition. No such policy decision is stated to be or claimed to be taken in the case of the SPCA. 25. For all the above reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. However, it is directed that the terminal surrender benefits already paid to the petitioner shall not be recovered, since such recovery is prohibited by the Hon’ble Apex Court by the judgment in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [ (2015) 4 SCC 334 ]. 26. The petitioner will be free to approach the competent authority for claiming Gratuity. If the petitioner files any Gratuity application, delay in filing Gratuity application shall be condoned taking note of the pendency of this writ petition in this Court. Needless to say, the petitioner will be entitled to arrears of Ex-gratia pension, if amounts are otherwise due to the petitioner under that head. The writ petition is disposed of as above.