Vishnu Baban Vidhate And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 8667 Bom

                                                                 46-WP-2215-21.doc

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

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 2215 OF 2021


     Vishnu Baban Vidhate & 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 undertakes to fle

Affdavit of Service shoiing service on Respondent Nos. 1 to 5

iithin one ieek. Undertaking is accepted. Learned AGP Mr.

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.

46-WP-2215-21.doc

2. This Petition is fled under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking direction against Respondents for

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

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

3. The Petitioners are iorking 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 ihich 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 viei 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 iages at the

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

46-WP-2215-21.doc

pay scale) extended to regular employees holding the same

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

calculated accordingly and paid by the Respondent - Zilla

Parishad to the Petitioners iithin a period of six months from

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

Writ Petition made it clear that the beneft shall be extendable

to all other similarly situated contractual drivers iho 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 iith companion matters. By

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

issues involved in that Petition are covered by the viei taken

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

Accordingly, the Petitioners iere directed to pay iages at the

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

pay scale) extended to regular employees holding the same

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

ias directed to comply iith this order iithin six months from

2 Writ Petition (st) No. 92250 of 2020

46-WP-2215-21.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 ihen an employee

performs the same iork as another employee and no such

artifcial distinction can be made betieen tio such employees,

ihereby one is given higher salary and another is paid a loier

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

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

iith 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

iell as the Principal Bench has taken a consistent viei that the

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

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

extended to regular employees holding the same post iith

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

3 (2017)1 SCC 148

46-WP-2215-21.doc

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

"9. The other relief claimed by the petitioners is about pay parity iith the regular drivers in Class-III category. In this regard the lai 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 ihen an employee performs the same iork as another employee. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that no artifcial distinction can be made betieen such tio employees, ihereby one is given higher salary and another is paid loier salary. Relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court appearing in paragraph no.58 of the judgment are reproduced as beloi :-

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

46-WP-2215-21.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-iorth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knois that his dependants iould suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser iage. Any act of paying less iages 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 ihen one employee discharges/performs same iork as another employee, there cannot be any distinction betieen the tio 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 iho are performing similar iork as the regular employees iould be entitled to drai iages at the minimum of the pay scale (at the loiest grade, in the regular pay scale) extended to regular employees holding the same post. This relief iould also have to be granted to all the petitioners as there is no dispute that their iork is similar to the iork of the regular drivers."

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

46-WP-2215-21.doc

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

the folloiing order is passed:-

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

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

scale) extended to regular employees holding the

same post iith effect from the date of the Petition.

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

iithin six months from today.

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

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