Zilla Parishad Through Its Chief Executive Officer And Others vs. Hajimiya Nasir Ahmed Shaikh And Others

Held

The Court held that the review petitions were partly allowed. The original orders were partly recalled to the extent of restoring the writ petitions to the file. The Court found that the writ petitions were decided overlooking crucial facts: the Union of India, being the source and funder of the scheme, was not arrayed as a respondent, nor were the contractors who selected and appointed the drivers. The Osmanabad Zilla Parishad was not afforded an opportunity to file an affidavit in reply, and the distinction between its role and that of the Chandrapur, Nagpur, and Bhandara Zilla Parishads (which had floated tenders, signed contracts, and issued appointment orders) was not brought to the Court's attention. The Court reasoned that these omissions constituted errors apparent on the face of the record and a violation of natural justice. The ratio decidendi is that a judgment passed without impleading necessary parties and without affording a proper hearing, especially when the factual matrix differs significantly from precedents relied upon, is liable for review. The Court directed that the writ petitioners be paid minimum pay scales at the lowest grade of regular employees holding the same post until further orders, their services should not be terminated without leave of the Court, and unpaid salaries for 12-15 months are to be processed as per a government communication dated 24.01.2023. The Union of India and the contractors were to be arrayed as respondents in the writ petitions.

Facts

The Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad (Review Petitioner) filed review petitions challenging orders passed in several writ petitions. The original writ petitioners were ambulance drivers engaged on a contractual basis. The Zilla Parishad contended that notices were not issued to it in 13 out of 21 writ petitions, and in the remaining 8, amended prayer clauses were permitted without serving the Zilla Parishad. It also argued that no contracts or appointment orders were placed on record, and it had not floated tenders or signed contracts, unlike other Zilla Parishads whose cases were relied upon. Furthermore, the Project Director of the National Health Mission (Union of India) and the contractors were not impleaded as respondents, and the Zilla Parishad was not a funding agency. The original petitioners argued they were identically placed, had worked for over a decade, and performed similar duties across the state.

Key Issues

1. Whether the review petitions are maintainable on the grounds of perversity and illegality in the original judgment, or if there is an error apparent on the face of the record or a violation of the principles of natural justice (opportunity of hearing)? (Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and principles of review). Petitioner's arguments: The Zilla Parishad argued that the original orders were passed mechanically, relying on judgments concerning other Zilla Parishads (Chandrapur, Nagpur, Bhandara) where the factual matrix was different. It emphasized the lack of proper notice, opportunity to file a reply, and the non-joinder of essential parties like the Union of India and the contractors. It asserted that these constituted errors apparent on the face of the record and violations of natural justice. Revenue/State's arguments: The original petitioners (representing the ambulance drivers) argued that all drivers were identically placed and performing similar work across the state. They contended that the orders sought to be reviewed were just and proper, and there was no error apparent on the face of the record, as the situation was analogous to cases decided in favour of drivers in other Zilla Parishads. They conceded that the Union of India and contractors were not arrayed as respondents but maintained that this did not invalidate the original orders.