Mahesh Tukaram Suravase vs. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary And Ors

Held

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. The Court acknowledged the non-payment of salaries for 12 to 15 months and directed the concerned 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 starting from March 2023. The Court also directed that the Zilla Parishads or contractors would have to make assessments for arrears of payments from the filing dates of the writ petitions and pay these amounts, if not in lump sum, then in twelve equated monthly installments. The Court further directed that the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad) should directly make payments to the contractual ambulance drivers via bank transactions, which would not establish an employer-employee relationship with the Zilla Parishad. The Court also clarified that contractual employees shall not be replaced by new contractual employees, with exceptions for misconduct, death, etc., and preference may be given to previously engaged drivers if replacements are necessary. The Court also noted that the State Government could frame a scheme in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi.

Facts

These writ petitions involve numerous petitioners who were contractual ambulance drivers engaged through contractors by various Zilla Parishads in Maharashtra. The core issue revolves around the non-payment of salaries to these drivers for extended periods, ranging from 12 to 15 months. The petitioners claim their services were terminated without proper justification, and they are seeking payment of their dues. The State of Maharashtra, through the Joint Director of Health Services, had previously communicated with the Zilla Parishads regarding the salaries payable to these drivers, including GST. The Zilla Parishads were asked to provide details of funds required for monthly salaries. The petitions also touch upon the contractual nature of their employment and the potential for direct payment by the Principal Employer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the contractual ambulance drivers, engaged through contractors by Zilla Parishads, are entitled to receive their unpaid salaries directly from the Principal Employer (Zilla Parishad) or the State Government, considering the prolonged non-payment by the contractors. 2. Whether the services of these contractual drivers should be protected from termination without leave of the Court, and if their employment conditions should be maintained as long as the scheme lasts. 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 directions for the direct payment of their salaries by the Principal Employer and for their services to be protected from arbitrary termination. They relied on principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding payment of wages and protection of contractual employees. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue or state specifically on the GST aspect in relation to the non-payment of salaries. However, the State's communication indicates an awareness of GST implications in salary calculations. The broader context suggests the State's involvement in resolving the payment issues.