Zilla Parishad Aurangabad Through Its Chief Executive Officer And Others vs. Annasaheb Asaram Dahihande And Others

Held

The Court held that the review petitions should be partly allowed, and the previous orders should be partly recalled to the extent of restoring the writ petitions to the file. The reasoning was that the original writ petitions were decided overlooking the fact that the Union of India, which funded the scheme, and the contractors, who selected and appointed the drivers, were not made parties. Furthermore, the Zilla Parishads of Nanded and Aurangabad were not given an opportunity to file a reply and their specific situation, of not having floated tenders or signed contracts, was not brought to the court's attention. The Court aimed to balance equities by protecting the original petitioners, who had worked as ambulance drivers for 10-15 years, and ensuring their salaries were paid without interruption. The Court directed that the minimum pay scale at the lowest grade of regular employees holding the same post be paid to the petitioners until further orders. Their services were also not to be terminated without leave of the Court. The Zilla Parishads were directed to submit details of unpaid salaries to the Joint Director of Health Services, Mumbai, within 10 days, and the Directorate of Health Services was expected to initiate steps to ensure salary payments from March 2023. The contractors' future bills would not be cleared without court leave. The petitioners were permitted to implead the Union of India and the contractors as respondents in the writ petitions.

Facts

The petitioners, ambulance drivers, had filed writ petitions seeking payment of their salaries. The High Court had previously passed orders in their favour. However, the Zilla Parishads of Nanded and Aurangabad filed review applications, arguing that the Union of India (funding source of the scheme) and the contractors who appointed the drivers were not made parties, and that these Zilla Parishads had not entered into any contracts or floated tenders. They contended that the court overlooked these facts and the distinction between their situation and other Zilla Parishads. The court noted that the Zilla Parishads had not been given an opportunity to file a reply. The review applications were filed after the earlier contractor's contract was terminated and the subsequent contractor's contract was also cancelled. The State of Maharashtra had issued a communication seeking details of salaries payable to contractual drivers, including GST.

Key Issues

1. Whether the previous orders passed in the writ petitions were liable to be reviewed on the grounds that the Union of India and the contractors were not arrayed as respondents, and that the Zilla Parishads of Nanded and Aurangabad had not entered into contracts or floated tenders, thereby overlooking material facts and distinctions? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the petitioners in the review applications. However, the context implies they would have argued for the continuation of the previous orders, emphasizing the long-standing service of the drivers and the need for salary payments. Revenue/State's arguments (Zilla Parishads): The Zilla Parishads argued that the writ petitions were decided overlooking crucial facts: the non-joinder of the Union of India (funding source) and the contractors (who appointed drivers), and the fact that they themselves had not entered into any contracts or floated tenders. They contended that this distinction was not brought to the court's attention, leading to an erroneous assumption that their situation was identical to other Zilla Parishads where such contracts existed. They also highlighted that they were not given an opportunity to file a reply.