Jaypal Ulhas Jadhav And Others vs. The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

Facts

The petitioners are contractual ambulance drivers engaged through contractors by various Zilla Parishads in Maharashtra. They have not been paid salaries for periods ranging from 12 to 15 months. The State of Maharashtra, through the Joint Director of Health Services, issued a communication on January 24, 2023, requesting Zilla Parishads to submit details of salaries payable, including GST, and the quantum of funds required. The Zilla Parishads were directed to fill a specific chart and submit it within 10 days. The Court was considering multiple writ petitions filed by these drivers challenging the non-payment of their salaries and seeking regularization of their services. The judgment also refers to previous orders and communications regarding the payment of salaries and the contractual nature of their employment.

Held

The Court directed that the contractual ambulance drivers (petitioners) shall be paid the minimum pay scale at the lowest grade applicable to regular employees holding the same post until further orders. Their services shall not be terminated without the leave of the Court, specifically concerning their contractual employment. The Court noted that the Zilla Parishads were to intimate the Joint Director of Health Services about the quantum of unpaid salaries, using a specified chart, within 10 days. The Directorate of Health Services was expected to initiate steps to ensure monthly salaries are paid starting from March 2023. The Court also directed that arrears of payments from the dates of filing of the writ petitions should be assessed and paid, either in lump sum or in twelve equated monthly installments. The Court held that the service conditions applicable to the petitioners would be maintained as long as the scheme lasts and that contractual employees shall not be replaced by new contractual employees, with exceptions for misconduct or other valid reasons. The Court directed the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad or Contractor) to directly make payments to the drivers via bank transactions, emphasizing this would not establish an employer-employee relationship with the Zilla Parishad or Principal Employer. The Court also clarified that the petitioners could raise industrial disputes if terminated, referencing relevant Supreme Court judgments. The Court further stated that its conclusions in Dhiraj Sudhakarrao Wankhede would not prevent the State Government from framing a scheme under the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi, if desired. Finally, the Court held that the Principal Employer could adjust these direct salary payments against the bills of the Contractors and service charges.

Key Issues

1. Whether the contractual ambulance drivers are entitled to receive minimum pay scales at the lowest grade of regular employees holding the same post until further orders, and whether their services can be terminated without leave of the Court in relation to their contractual employment? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued for the payment of minimum wages and protection against arbitrary termination, citing their long-standing service and the State's responsibility. They relied on principles of natural justice and the need for a stable livelihood. Revenue/State's contention: The State, through its communications and the Zilla Parishads, acknowledged the issue of non-payment and initiated steps to gather information for salary disbursement. The State's stance was to comply with the Court's directions and facilitate the payment process. No specific argument against the petitioners' entitlement to minimum pay or protection against termination was recorded, but the focus was on the procedural steps for payment.