Hajimiya Nasir Ahmed Shaikh vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Facts

A group of ambulance drivers, employed on a contractual basis through various contractors and deployed by Zilla Parishads, filed multiple writ petitions. They 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 these contractual drivers, including GST, and to assess the funds required for monthly payments. The Zilla Parishads were asked to directly pay the salaries. The petitions also concerned the termination of contractual services and the non-clearance of bills of contractors.

Held

The Court directed that the Petitioners be paid salaries at par with the minimum pay scale of regular employees holding the same post until further orders. Their services were also protected from termination without the leave of the Court, specifically concerning their contractual employment. The Court noted that the Petitioners had not been paid for 12 to 15 months and, referencing the State's communication of January 24, 2023, directed the Zilla Parishads to intimate the Joint Director of Health Services about the quantum of unpaid salaries within 10 days. The Directorate of Health Services was expected to initiate steps for monthly salary payments from March 2023. The Court also directed that contractors' bills would not be cleared without court leave. The Zilla Parishad or contractor was to assess arrears from the filing date of the writ petitions and make payments, either lump-sum or in twelve equated monthly installments. The Court also issued directions regarding maintaining service conditions, not replacing contractual employees, direct payment of salaries to drivers via bank transactions, and liberty to raise industrial disputes if terminated. The Court clarified that the State could frame a scheme in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi (supra). The Principal Employer could adjust these direct salary payments against contractor bills 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 the State Government, especially in light of non-payment by contractors. 2. Whether the services of the Petitioners can be terminated without leave of the Court, solely based on their contractual employment. 3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to receive their unpaid salaries, and if so, in what manner and timeframe. Arguments for the Petitioners: The petitioners argued that they have not been paid salaries for extended periods and sought direct payment from the principal employer. They also contended that their services should not be terminated without court intervention. Arguments for the Revenue/State: The State acknowledged the issue and issued a communication directing Zilla Parishads to assess and pay salaries. The State's stance was to facilitate direct payment to the drivers, thereby addressing the non-payment by contractors.