Jiyauddin Giyasuddin Kazi vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Facts

This case consolidates numerous writ petitions filed by contractual ambulance drivers. The petitioners, engaged through contractors, alleged non-payment of salaries for periods ranging from 12 to 15 months. The State of Maharashtra, through the Directorate of Health Services, issued a communication on January 24, 2023, to Zilla Parishads requesting details of salaries payable to contractual drivers, including GST, and the quantum of funds required for direct payment. The Zilla Parishads were asked to submit this information to the Joint Director of Health Services, Mumbai, within ten days. The Court noted that the contractors who deployed these drivers had their contracts terminated. The petitions sought directions for the payment of arrears and regular salaries.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioners, as contractual ambulance drivers, are entitled to receive their salaries directly from the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad or State Government) to ensure continuity of essential services, especially given the non-payment by contractors and termination of contracts. The Court directed that the minimum pay scale at the lowest grade of regular employees holding the same post should be paid to the Petitioners until further orders. Their services were also protected from termination without leave of the Court, solely based on their contractual employment status. The Court acknowledged the State's communication dated January 24, 2023, and expected the Directorate of Health Services to initiate steps for monthly salary payments from March 2023. The Court also directed that arrears of salaries, from the dates of filing the Writ Petitions, should be paid by the Zilla Parishad or Contractor, either in lump sum or in twelve equated monthly installments. Regarding the second issue, the Court clarified that its conclusions in Dhiraj Sudhakarrao Wankhede, sustained by the Supreme Court, would not prevent the State Government from framing a scheme in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi, if the State so desired. The Court also directed that payments made directly to contractual employees by the Principal Employer could be adjusted against the bills of the Contractors and service charges.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioners, as contractual ambulance drivers, are entitled to receive their salaries directly from the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad or State Government) given the alleged non-payment by contractors and termination of contracts? This issue turns on the interpretation of employer-employee relationships in contractual engagements and the State's responsibility for ensuring timely payment of wages to essential service providers. 2. Whether the State Government can frame a scheme for regularization or direct payment of contractual employees, notwithstanding previous judicial pronouncements like Dhiraj Sudhakarrao Wankhede, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi? This issue concerns the State's power to create policies for contractual workers. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued for direct payment of salaries by the Principal Employer due to non-payment by contractors and the termination of their contracts. They relied on the principle of ensuring essential services are maintained and workers are paid. Revenue's Contention: The State of Maharashtra, through its communication dated January 24, 2023, acknowledged the issue and initiated a process for direct payment, indicating an acceptance of responsibility to ensure salaries are disbursed.