Santosh Shrirang Shelke And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 8666 Bom

                                                                  7-WP-1181-21.doc

Sharayu Khot.
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 1181 OF 2021


     Santosh Shrirang Shelke & Ors.                         ...Petitioners

             Versus

     The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                        ...Respondents

                                       ----------
     Mr. Pramod Kulkarni for the Petitioners.
     Mr. S.S. Panchpor, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                       ----------

                                       CORAM :           K.K. TATED &
                                                         R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.

DATE : 1 July 2021

ORDER : (Per R.I. Chagla, J)

1. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that

the Respondents have been served and an Affdavit of Service

has been fled on 18th June 2021 showing service on

Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 by hand delivery along with

acknowledgment. Learned AGP Mr. S.S. Panchpor represents

the Respondent-State. Respondent No. 5-Zilla Parishad inspite

of service, has not remained present. Thus, this Petition is

taken up for disposal.

7-WP-1181-21.doc

2. This Petition is fled under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking direction against Respondents for

payment of wages to the Petitioners at the minimum of the pay

scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale).

3. The Petitioners are working as ambulance drivers

on contractual basis, the contract is given by the Respondent

No.5-Zilla Parishad. The Petitioners are being paid salary of Rs.

8,000/- per month for the duty which is of 24 hours. The

Petitioners have stated that even this Rs. 8,000/- monthly

remuneration is paid after 5 to 6 months and it is clear that the

act of the Respondent is exploitation of the Petitioners.

4. Mr. Pramod Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the

Petitioners submits that issue involved in this Petition is

covered by the view taken by this Court (Nagpur Bench) in its

judgment dated 20th November 2019 passed in the case of

Dhiraj S/o. Sudhakarrao Wankhede & Ors. Vs. The Zilla

Parishad, Chandrapur & Ors.1. This Court (Nagpur Bench) had

directed the Respondents to pay the Petitioners wages at the

minimum of the pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular

7-WP-1181-21.doc

pay scale) extended to regular employees holding the same

post with effect from the date of the Petition. All arrears to be

calculated accordingly and paid by the Respondent - Zilla

Parishad to the Petitioners within a period of six months from

the date of this order. This Court while disposing of the said

Writ Petition made it clear that the beneft shall be extendable

to all other similarly situated contractual drivers who are not

parties to that Petition.

5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has further

relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in

the matter of Nagendrayya P. Hiremath and Ors. Vs. The State

of Maharashtra and Ors.2 along with companion matters. By

order dated 8th December 2020, this Court has held that the

issues involved in that Petition are covered by the view taken

by this Court in Dhiraj S/o. Sudhakarrao Wankhede (supra).

Accordingly, the Petitioners were directed to pay wages at the

minimum of the pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular

pay scale) extended to regular employees holding the same

post with effect from the date of the Petition. Respondent No. 5

was directed to comply with this order within six months from

2 Writ Petition (st) No. 92250 of 2020

7-WP-1181-21.doc

the date of this order.

6. Having considered the above submissions, it is clear

that the issue arising in this Petition is no longer res integra.

Further, the Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab and ors

Vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors.3 has held that no artifcial parameter

can be devised to deny the fruits of labour when an employee

performs the same work as another employee and no such

artifcial distinction can be made between two such employees,

whereby one is given higher salary and another is paid a lower

salary. It is noted that the Petitioners have restricted the relief

sought in Petition to the extent of equal work, equal pay parity

with the regular ambulance drivers in Class-III category.

7. There is no dispute that the Petitioners are

contractual employees and this Court both at Nagpur Bench as

well as the Principal Bench has taken a consistent view that the

Petitioners are entitled to the paid wages at the minimum of the

pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale)

extended to regular employees holding the same post with

effect from the date of the Petition. This Court (Nagpur Bench)

3 (2017)1 SCC 148

7-WP-1181-21.doc

in Dhiraj S/o. Sudhakarrao Wankhede (supra) held thus:-

"9. The other relief claimed by the petitioners is about pay parity with the regular drivers in Class-III category. In this regard the law has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others...Versus...Jagjit Singh and others, reported in (2017 )1 SCC 148.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no artifcial parameters can be devised to deny the fruits of labour when an employee performs the same work as another employee. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that no artifcial distinction can be made between such two employees, whereby one is given higher salary and another is paid lower salary. Relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court appearing in paragraph no.58 of the judgment are reproduced as below :-

"58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artifcial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Anyone, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so voluntarily. He

7-WP-1181-21.doc

does so to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self-respect and dignity, at the cost of his self-worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his dependants would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation."

11. It is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when one employee discharges/performs same work as another employee, there cannot be any distinction between the two employees so far as the application of the pay scale to both of them is concerned. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that all the temporary employees who are performing similar work as the regular employees would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale) extended to regular employees holding the same post. This relief would also have to be granted to all the petitioners as there is no dispute that their work is similar to the work of the regular drivers."

8. Since the issue arising in this Petition is covered by

7-WP-1181-21.doc

the view taken by this Court in the above referred decisions,

the following order is passed:-

(a) The Petitioners shall be paid wages at the minimum of

the pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay

scale) extended to regular employees holding the

same post with effect from the date of the Petition.

(b) Respondent No. 5 is directed to comply with this order

within six months from today.

(c) Writ Petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

 [R.I. CHAGLA J.]                                      [K.K. TATED, J.]