Vikas Bibhishan Nikam vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Facts

This judgment consolidates numerous writ petitions filed by ambulance drivers and their unions against the State of Maharashtra and other respondents. The petitioners, employed 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, directing Zilla Parishads to submit details of salaries payable to contractual drivers, including GST, and the funds required for monthly payments. The court was addressing the issue of unpaid salaries and the contractual employment of these drivers.

Held

The Court directed that the minimum pay scale at the lowest grade applicable to regular employees holding the same ambulance driver post shall 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. The Court noted that the petitioners had not been paid salaries for 12 to 15 months. In light of the State's communication dated January 24, 2023, the concerned Zilla Parishads were directed to intimate the Joint Director of Health Services, Mumbai, about the quantum of unpaid salaries within ten days. The Directorate of Health Services was expected to initiate steps to ensure monthly salaries are paid from March 2023. The court also directed that the arrears of payments be assessed and made, at least in installments. The court explicitly stated that the directions regarding not being replaced by new contractual employees would be restricted to contractual working and that the Principal Employer would have liberty to seek new drivers in case of misconduct, misdemeanor, or death. The court also clarified that its conclusions in Dhiraj Sudhakarrao Wankhede would not prevent the State from framing a scheme as per the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi.

Key Issues

1. Whether the State of Maharashtra, through its various agencies, is obligated to ensure the timely payment of salaries to contractual ambulance drivers, particularly when their services are essential and their contractors have allegedly failed to disburse payments? (Mixed question of law and fact). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that despite providing essential services, they have not been paid salaries for extended periods, highlighting the financial hardship caused. They relied on the principle that essential service providers should not be left unpaid and sought direct intervention from the court to ensure salary disbursement. Revenue/State's arguments: The State acknowledged the issue and issued a communication directing Zilla Parishads to provide details of unpaid salaries and required funds. This indicated an attempt to address the problem, suggesting a willingness to ensure payments, albeit through existing administrative channels. The State's actions suggest an implicit acceptance of responsibility to facilitate payments.