Somnath Chhagganrao Hakkam vs. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Facts

The petitioners are contractual ambulance drivers engaged through contractors by 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, directing Zilla Parishads to submit details of salaries payable, including GST, and the quantum of funds required for monthly salaries. The Zilla Parishads were asked to fill a specific format/chart. The petitioners have filed various writ petitions seeking payment of their dues and continuation of their services. The Court is considering multiple writ petitions and contempt petitions related to these issues.

Held

The Court directed that the petitioners, as contractual ambulance drivers, shall be paid salaries at par with the minimum pay scale of 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 would intimate the Joint Director of Health Services about the quantum of unpaid salaries. The Zilla Parishads were directed to fill the chart annexed to the communication dated January 24, 2023, and submit it within ten days. The Directorate of Health Services was expected to initiate immediate steps to ensure monthly salaries are paid from March 2023. The Court also directed that the Zilla Parishads or contractors must make assessments of arrears from the filing dates of the writ petitions and pay them, if not in lump sum, then in twelve equated monthly installments. The Court held that the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad) should directly make payments to the contractual drivers via bank transfers to prevent contractors from withholding wages. This direct payment would not establish an employer-employee relationship between the drivers and the Zilla Parishad. The Court also clarified that the conclusions in Dhiraj Sudhakarrao Wankhede would not prevent the State from framing a scheme under the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi, if desired. The Court also directed that the Zilla Parishads or State Government 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 their salaries directly from the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad) until further orders, given the non-payment by contractors? 2. Whether the services of the petitioners can be terminated without leave of the Court in relation to their contractual employment? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that they have not been paid salaries for extended periods, and the contractors have failed to fulfill their obligations. They sought direct payment of salaries and protection against termination. They relied on various Supreme Court judgments concerning contractual employment and payment of wages. Revenue/State's arguments: The State of Maharashtra, through its communications, acknowledged the issue of non-payment and directed Zilla Parishads to provide details for resolution. The State's stance, as reflected in the communications, was to facilitate the payment of salaries. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the Revenue/State in opposition to the petitioners' claims for direct payment or against the principle of ensuring salary disbursement.