Zilla Parishad Nanded Through Its Chief Executive Officer Varsha Damodhar Thakur And Another vs. Gajanan Bajirao Pavade And Others

Held

The Court held that the delay of 181 days in filing the Review Applications should be condoned, allowing the Civil Applications. The Court further held that the view taken in the order dated 02.03.2023 in the case of Asef Ahmad Shaikh and connected matters would be applicable to the present cases. Consequently, the Review Applications were partly allowed, and the orders sought to be reviewed were partly recalled to the extent of restoring the Writ Petitions to the file of the Court. The directions issued in the Asef Ahmad Shaikh judgment, which included ensuring that contractual ambulance drivers receive minimum pay scale, protection against termination without leave of the Court, and that unpaid salaries are processed based on a communication from the Directorate of Health Services, were made applicable to these cases. The Writ Petitions were ordered to be restored. Pending civil applications were disposed of as they did not survive.

Facts

The applicant, Zilla Parishad, Nanded, through its Chief Executive Officer, filed Civil Applications seeking condonation of delay in filing Review Applications. These Review Applications were filed in relation to Writ Petitions concerning contractual ambulance drivers. The High Court had previously decided similar matters in 'Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, through its Chief Executive Officer and another Versus Asef Ahmad Shaikh and others' by an order dated 02.03.2023. The parties in the present cases conceded that the view taken in the Asef Ahmad Shaikh judgment would apply. The delay in filing the review applications was 181 days. The Court allowed the applications for condonation of delay and took up the Review Applications for hearing and disposal by consent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 181 days in filing the Review Applications should be condoned, considering the previous order in connected matters. 2. Whether the directions issued in the case of 'Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, through its Chief Executive Officer and another Versus Asef Ahmad Shaikh and others' (dated 02.03.2023) are applicable to the present cases. Petitioner's arguments (Zilla Parishad, Nanded): The petitioner argued that the delay was substantial and sought condonation. They also conceded that the principles laid down in the Asef Ahmad Shaikh judgment should be applied to the present cases, implying that the review applications should be allowed in line with that precedent. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the respondents/State regarding the delay or the applicability of the Asef Ahmad Shaikh judgment. However, the fact that the parties conceded to the applicability of the prior judgment suggests a consensus on this point.