Bombay High Court
SHARAD DATTATARY MENGADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Contractual ambulance drivers must be paid wages at the minimum of the regular pay scale applicable to regular drivers, with arrears from 22 February 2021.
Summary
The petitioners, who were appointed as contractual ambulance drivers by various Zilla Parishads in Maharashtra, sought payment of wages at the minimum of the regular pay scale for Class III drivers and arrears from the date of joining. The Court noted that the petitioners performed the same duties as regular drivers and relied on the Supreme Court’s ‘equal pay for equal work’ jurisprudence. It cited a series of precedents, including State of Punjab v Jagjit Singh, Dhiraj Wankhede v Zilla Parishad, and several subsequent High Court and Supreme Court decisions upholding wage parity for contractual drivers. The Court rejected the respondents’ refusal to comply, emphasizing that artificial wage differentials are impermissible and discriminatory. Consequently, the Court ordered the respondents to pay the petitioners wages at the minimum regular pay scale, with arrears payable from 22 February 2021, and directed dissemination of the judgment to all Zilla Parishads.
Issues considered
- Whether contractual ambulance drivers are entitled to wages equal to the minimum of the regular pay scale for similarly situated regular drivers.
- Whether the respondents can lawfully withhold arrears of wages despite established jurisprudence on equal pay for equal work.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- equal pay for equal work
- contractual ambulance drivers
- wage parity
- minimum pay scale
- discrimination
- Industrial Disputes Act
- writ petition
- Maharashtra
- Zilla Parishad
Judgment
9 &10-WP-2651-2026+.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2651 OF 2026
Vasant Nagnath Adwal Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thr
Its Secretary Ministry Of
Health And Family and Ors Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6693 OF 2026
Pravin Maruti Said Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thr
Its Secretary Ministry Of
Health And Family and Ors Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6690 OF 2026
Ballaleshwar Lala Bhandalkar Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thr
Its Secretary Ministry Of
Health And Family and Ors Respondents
Page 1 of 22
Shivgan
9 &10-WP-2651-2026+.DOC
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6672 OF 2026
Vishal Bhagwan Sawane Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thr
Its Secretary Ministry Of
Health And Family and Ors Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6666 OF 2026
Harshal Santosh Shiratar Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr Sec. Ministry Of
Health and Family Welfare and Ors Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6678 OF 2026
Sanjay Dhanaji Shelke Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr Its Sec. Ministry Of Health and
Family Welfare and Ors Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6643 OF 2026
Page 2 of 22
Shivgan
9 &10-WP-2651-2026+.DOC
Magbul Hasanbhai Mulani Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr Its Sec. Ministry Of
Health and Family Welfare and Ors Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6640 OF 2026
Rajendra Vasant Raut Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr Its Sec. Ministry Of
Health and Family Welfare and Ors Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2026
Ganesh Anil Kolhe Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr Its Sec. Ministry Of
Health and Family Welfare and Ors Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6654 OF 2026
Rohit Shivaji Ghogare Petitioner
versus
Page 3 of 22
Shivgan
9 &10-WP-2651-2026+.DOC
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr Its Sec. Ministry Of
Health and Family Welfare and Ors Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6652 OF 2026
Shashikant Kisan Bhawari Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr Its Sec. Ministry Of
Health and Family Welfare and Ors Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6677 OF 2026
Pradeep Shivaji Pawar Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr Its Sec. Ministry Of
Health and Family Welfare and Ors Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6679 OF 2026
Shivaji Dattatrya Gole Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr Its Sec. Ministry Of
Page 4 of 22
Shivgan
9 &10-WP-2651-2026+.DOC
Health and Family Welfare and Ors Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6681 OF 2026
Shekhar Keru Lokhande Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr Its Sec. Ministry Of
Health and Family Welfare and Ors Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6685 OF 2026
Ramdas Sakharam Atole Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr Its Sec. Ministry Of
Health and Family Welfare and Ors Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6650 OF 2026
Digambar Kanhoba Kharade Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr Its Sec. Ministry Of
Health and Family Welfare and Ors Respondents
WITH
Page 5 of 22
Shivgan
9 &10-WP-2651-2026+.DOC
WRIT PETITION NO. 6688 OF 2026
Bhagvan Haushiram Dere Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr Its Sec. Ministry Of
Health and Family Welfare and Ors Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6626 OF 2026
Suresh Vitthal Dolas Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr Its Sec. Ministry Of
Health and Family Welfare and Ors Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6625 OF 2026
Rupesh Dashrath Behede Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr Its Sec. Ministry Of
Health and Family Welfare and Ors Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6627 OF 2026
Santosh Vilas Dhamdhere Petitioner
Page 6 of 22
Shivgan
9 &10-WP-2651-2026+.DOC
versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr Its Sec. Ministry Of
Health and Family Welfare and Ors Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7415 OF 2026
Sharad Dattatary Mengade Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thru Secretary and Ors Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7401 OF 2026
Aditya Shantaram Gaikwad Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thru Secretary and Ors Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7410 OF 2026
Mustak Sikandar Shaikh Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr. Its Secretary Ministry
Of Health and Family Welfare And Ors Respondents
Page 7 of 22
Shivgan
9 &10-WP-2651-2026+.DOC
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7412 OF 2026
Tejas Rajesh Sherkar Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thru Secretary and Ors Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7406 OF 2026
Kapil Daulat Awate Petitioner
versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr. Its Secretary Ministry
Ry Of Health and Family Welfare And Ors Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2741 OF 2026
Sandeep Shankar Bhujbal and Ors Petitioners
versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr. Its Secretary Ministry
Of Health and Family
Welfare And Ors Respondents
WITH
Page 8 of 22
Shivgan
9 &10-WP-2651-2026+.DOC
WRIT PETITION NO. 9431 OF 2026
Akshya Sunil Taru and Ors Petitioners
versus
State Of Maharashtra Thr
Its Principal Secretary
and Ors Respondents
_______
Appearance in WP No. 2651 of 2026 :
Mr Raymond Zaiwala, with Avinash Naikwadi, Swati M, Jadhav, Advocates for
Petitioners in all Writ Petitions.
Mr Ravindra Sonba Pachundkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 5-Z.P. in all Writ
Petitions.
Mr P P Kakade a/w P N Diwan, V G Badgujar, A R Deolekar, V M Mali, S H
Kankal, P M J Deshpande, AGPs for State.
Appearance in WP No. 2741 of 2026 & WP No. 9431 of 2026 :
Mr Bhalchandra S Shinde, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr Ravindra Sonba Pachundkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 5.
Mr Aditya R Deolokar, AGP a/w Priyanka Chavan, AGP for State.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 25th AUGUST 2026
Page 9 of 22
Shivgan
9 &10-WP-2651-2026+.DOC
JUDGMENT: (Per DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of all the parties,
matters are taken up for final hearing. Since the relief sought in all these petitions is
identical, the petitions are being decided by the present common Judgment and
Order.
2. By these petitions, the Petitioners seek a direction to Respondent No. 5 –
Zilla Parishad to pay their wages at the minimum of the pay scale (the lowest grade
in the regular pay scale) applicable to regular drivers in the Class III category, and
to pay arrears from the date of joining.
3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the Petitioners were appointed as
ambulance drivers at various Primary Health Centres in Pune by Respondent No.
5, Zilla Parishad, on a contractual basis. The Petitioners are paid a salary of Rs.
8,000/- to Rs. 11,000/- for a 24-hour duty, and even this salary is paid belatedly.
All the Petitioners rely on a series of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this
Court upholding the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, directing the
Respondents to pay wages to similarly situated employees at the minimum of the
pay scale (at the lowest grade) in the regular pay scales paid to regular employees
discharging similar duties. The courts have held that no artificial parameter can be
invoked to deny the fruits of labour when an employee performs the same work as
another employee and further held that no artificial distinction can be made
between such employees, whereby one is given a higher salary and the other a
lower salary.
Page 10 of 22
Shivgan
9 &10-WP-2651-2026+.DOC
4. Mr Raymond Zaiwala, learned Counsel, appeared for all the Petitioners in
the group of writ petitions of which the lead petition is WP No. 2651 of 2026 and
Mr Bhalchandra S Shinde, learned counsel, appeared for all the Petitioners in the
group of petitions of which the lead petitions are WP No. 2741 of 2026 & WP No.
9431 of 2026. Mr Ravindra Sonba Pachundkar, Advocate, represented Respondent
No. 5, Zilla Parishad, in all the petitions, and Mr Aditya R Deolokar, learned AGP,
represented the State.
5. The Petitioners have placed before us the series of decisions of the Supreme
Court as well as this Court answering the issue arising in this batch of petitions;
hence, understandably, none of the Respondents has filed their Affidavits in Reply.
We now proceed to discuss the series of judgments relied upon by the
Petitioners dealing with the issue at hand.
6. In State of Punjab & Ors. vs Jagjit Singh & Ors. 1 , the Supreme Court
dealt with an issue concerning employees engaged on a regular basis who claimed
higher wages under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. The claim was
premised on the ground that the duties and responsibilities they performed were
the same as those of the same post for which a higher pay scale was allowed in
other government departments. Alternatively, their duties and responsibilities were
the same as those of other posts with different designations, but they were placed in
a lower pay scale. Having painstakingly considered the parameters laid down by it
in its earlier decisions referred to in the said judgment, wherein the principle of
"equal pay for equal work" was invoked and considered, the Court delineated the
1(2017) 1 SCC 148
Page 11 of 22
Shivgan
9 &10-WP-2651-2026+.DOC
relevant parameters in this regard. In recording these parameters, the Court also
adverted to other judgments pertaining to temporary employees (also dealt with in
the said judgment), in which the Supreme Court had occasion to express the legal
position with reference to the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. The Supreme
Court in Jagjit Singh (supra at pg. 13) recorded its deductions as under: -
“58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial
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
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 dependents 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.”
7. A Division Bench of this Court (Nagpur Bench), in the matter of Dhiraj
S/o Sudhakarrao Wankhede & Ors. Vs Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur & Ors. 2,
while dealing with an identical case of ambulance drivers appointed on a
contractual basis seeking parity of pay with regular ambulance drivers, considering
the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh (supra at pg. 13), directed the
Respondents therein to pay wages to contractual ambulance drivers equivalent to
the minimum pay scale (at the lowest pay grade in the regular pay scale) applicable
to regular drivers.
22019 SCC OnLine Bom13080
Page 12 of 22
Shivgan
9 &10-WP-2651-2026+.DOC
8. The Respondents assailed this Court's decision in the case of Dhiraj
Wankhede (supra at pg. 14) before the Supreme Court by filing SLP (Civil) Diary
No. 12195/2020. By an order dated 22 nd February 2021, the Supreme Court
dismissed the said SLP.
9. Thereafter, this Court, once again in a clutch of writ petitions led by WP (St)
No. 92250/2020, in the matter of Nagendrayya P. Hiremath vs State of
Maharashtra & Ors.3, decided on 8th December 2020, reiterated the principles
laid down by the Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh (supra at pg. 13) and by this Court
in Dhiraj Wankhede (supra at pg. 14) and directed the contractual “ambulance
drivers” to be paid wages equivalent to the minimum pay scale (at the lowest pay
grade in the regular pay scale) applicable to regular drivers.
10. The decision in Nagendrayya Hiremath (supra at pg. 15) was followed by
another decision of this Court in the matter of Rajendra Kamble vs State of
Maharashtra4,wherein the Court passed similar directions to the Respondents. The
Judgment and Order in Nagendrayya Hiremath and others (supra at pg. 15) was
challenged by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Solapur, before the
Supreme Court in an SLP (C) No. 8395/2021 titled The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Solapur vs Ashok Dhondiba Meher 5 (one of the Petitioners in
the Hiremath case). The Supreme Court, in Paragraphs 10 and 11 of its decision
dated 23rd March 2022, dismissed the SLP and held as under:
“10. In the above circumstances, it is noticed that in the present facts the
32020 SCC OnLine 6920
4Writ Petition No. 2012 of 2021, decided on 1 July 2021
st
52022 SCC OnLine SC 1354
Page 13 of 22
Shivgan
9 &10-WP-2651-2026+.DOC
only relief granted by the High Court to the private Respondents herein is
to be paid the wages at the minimum of the pay-scale at the lowest grade,
the regular pay-scale extended to the regular employees holding the said
post. The said benefit ordered to be extended is in tune with the
observations of this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra). Further, in the instant
facts, what cannot be overlooked is also that the private Respondents
thought employed through the contractors are discharging the onerous
duties of driving the ambulance, which is operated to provide the benefit
of public health to the citizens in the PHC’s under the Zilla Parishad,
which in turn is for discharging the obligations of the State. Therefore, in
such circumstances, the minimum relief that has been granted by the
High Court would not call for interference. We at this juncture also take
note of the fact that the judgment dated 20.11.2019 passed by the
coordinate bench of the High Court in Dhiraj Wankhede (supra), relied
upon by the High Court in the instant case, had been assailed before this
Court in a Special Leave Petition (Civil) bearing Diary No. 12195/2020.
However, the Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed by this Court
on 22.02.2021.
11. Accordingly, the above petitions, being devoid of merit, stand
dismissed.”
11. Thereafter, the Aurangabad bench of this Court was also faced with
another set of petitions involving an identical issue in the matter of Navnath
Bhaskar Dive & Anr. vs The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary &
Ors.6, along with 122 petitions, including several contempt petitions. The
Division Bench, referring to all the previous decisions of the Supreme Court
and this Court, directed payment to the contractual ambulance drivers at par
with the regular drivers and issued several directions as under: -
“20. In view of the above, the Agency, meaning the Zilla Parishad or the
Contractor, will have to make the assessment of the arrears of such
payments from the dates of filing of the Writ Petitions, and accordingly,
6Writ Petition No. 1913 of 2024 decided on 30.08.2024
Page 14 of 22
Shivgan
9 &10-WP-2651-2026+.DOC
make such payments to these Ambulance Drivers, if not lump-sum, at
least in a staggered manner viz. in twelve equal monthly instalments.
21. In view of the above, all these Writ Petitions are partly allowed,
with the following directions: -
(a) The service conditions applicable to these Petitioners would be
maintained as long as the scheme lasts.
(b) The contractual employees shall not be replaced by new contractual
employees, either by the Contractor or by the Principal Employer. These
directions not to be replaced with another contractual employee would
be restricted only to the contractual working Drivers, and in the event of
any misconduct/misdemeanour/death of the employee or any such
reasons, the Principal Employer/the Contractor would be at liberty to
seek services of new Ambulance Drivers. If there are certain contractual
Ambulance Drivers who have earlier worked and are not engaged as on
date, preference may be granted to them, if any replacement is to be
effected.
(c) Considering the grave and serious complaints about Contractors not
paying the wages to these Petitioners on the principle laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Dhondiba Meher (supra), we deem
it appropriate to direct the Principal Employer to directly make the
payments of these contractual Ambulance Drivers, vide Bank
transactions in their salary bank Account. Such payment shall not be a
ground for alleging that the contract is sham and bogus, and no
employer/employee relationship should be deemed to be established
between such Ambulance Drivers vis-à-vis the Zilla Parishad or the
Principal Employer.
(d) If any of the contractual Ambulance Drivers have been terminated
or disengaged, they are at liberty to raise an industrial dispute under the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and carry a reference to
the Industrial Tribunal/labour Court, as the case may be, in the light of
the law laid down in Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs Kalyani Steels Ltd. And
Anr., [2001 (2) SCC 381]; Cipla Ltd. Vs Maharashtra General Kamgar
Union and Ors., [2001 (3) SCC 101] and the judgment of the Hon’ble
Page 15 of 22
Shivgan
9 &10-WP-2651-2026+.DOC
Supreme Court (5 Judge Bench) in Steel Authority of India Ltd. And
Others Vs National Union Waterfront Workers and Others, dated
30/08/2001, reported in [AIR 2001 SC 3527].
(e) The conclusions of this Court in Dhiraj Sudhakarrao Wankhede
(supra), which have been sustained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
would not come in the way of the State Government in framing a scheme
in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary,
State of Karnataka vs Umadevi (supra), if so desired by the State
Government.
(f) Since we have directed the Zilla Parishads or the State Government
or the Rugna Kalyan Samiti (Medical Board), as the case may be, to
directly pay the salaries to these contractual employees, it would be
within the domain of the Principal Employer to adjust these amounts as
against the bills of the Contractors and also by adjusting the service
charges.”
12. Recently, the Supreme Court in The State of Maharashtra through
its Secretary & Others vs Kamlesh Dhakal Thakhne and Ors 7, upheld the
decision of this Court, wherein this Court had issued similar directions to the
State to pay the contractual “ambulance drivers”, equivalent to the minimum
pay scale (at the lowest pay grade in the regular pay scale) applicable to
regular drivers. The Supreme Court, in Paragraph 2 of the said decision,
simply dismissed the challenge to the High Court’s Judgment and Order by
saying the following:
“2. Since, the issue has already been settled, the order passed and the
directions issued by the High Court in paragraph 21 of the impugned
order is affirmed and all the Civil Appeals/petitions are, accordingly,
disposed of.”
13. The main conclusion from the above discussion is clear: the issue of
determining the wages for ambulance drivers—specifically, paying them the
7Civil Appeal No. 7288/2025., decided on 17 August 2026
th
Page 16 of 22
Shivgan
9 &10-WP-2651-2026+.DOC
minimum pay scale applicable to regular ambulance drivers at the lowest pay grade
—is well established on the principle of ‘equal wages for equal work’. This principle
has roots in the early concept of justice. The Respondents are likely aware of this
principle but may pretend ignorance. Nevertheless, numerous decisions by this
court and the Supreme Court have addressed the payment of wages to contractual
ambulance drivers, with the same Respondents opposing in all those cases.
Therefore, the Respondents cannot claim ignorance of these legal rulings. Despite
knowing the legal position and their responsibilities, their continued refusal to pay
wages as directed by this Court and the Supreme Court, based on earlier
judgments, is unjustifiable. Their reasons for abstaining from acting in accordance
with established law appear to be either a gross administrative sclerosis or an
intended merely to harass the contractual drivers. Individuals not petitioning the
Court are discriminated against those who have litigated. This is an area where
discrimination has reared its ugly head. These persons come from the lowest grade
of service. They can ill afford to rush to court. They are not represented by
federations or societies and, as such, have hardly any assistance. They need to settle
responses individually and rush to court, which, in some cases, may be beyond
their reach. Therefore, some of them failed to knock at the doors of the court of
justice. In such a situation, even without crystal gazing, the choice is between
incurring litigation expenses with an uncertain outcome and suffering
discrimination or remaining underpaid day to day. It is a Hobson's choice.
Therefore, those who could not come to the court need not be at a comparative
disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated,
Page 17 of 22
Shivgan
9 &10-WP-2651-2026+.DOC
they are entitled to similar treatment, if not by anyone else’s hands, but at the
hands of this Court. This is exactly the view of the Supreme Court in Inderpal
Yadav v. Union of India 8, wherein the Court held that the State should not
compel citizens to litigate individually for identical relief.
14. Furthermore, in its decision in the matter of Lt. Col Suprita Chandel vs
Union of India & Ors.9, the Supreme Court, while granting relief to a woman
army officer by directing the grant of a permanent commission even though she
had not pursued litigation, reiterated that individuals are not required to litigate
separately for the same relief obtained by other similarly situated individuals
against the action of the government department. The relief granted to similarly
situated individuals would be automatically extended to individuals who have not
litigated their cases. In this regard, the Court observed as under: -
“14. It is a well settled principle of law that where a citizen
aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached
the court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favour, others
similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for
them to go to court. [See Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise,
New Delhi and Others, (1975) 4 SCC 714]
15. In K.I. Shephard and Others v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC
431, this Court, while reinforcing the above principle, held as under: -
“19. The writ petitions and the appeals must succeed. We
set aside the impugned judgments of the Single Judge and Division
Bench of the Kerala High Court and direct that each of the three
transferee banks should take over the excluded employees on the
same terms and conditions of employment under the respective
banking companies prior to amalgamation. The employees would
81985 SCC (2) 648
92024 INSC 942
Page 18 of 22
Shivgan
9 &10-WP-2651-2026+.DOC
be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service for all purposes
including salary and perks throughout the period. We leave it open
to the transferee banks to take such action as they consider proper
against these employees in accordance with law. Some of the
excluded employees have not come to court. There is no
justification to penalise them for not having litigated. They too
shall be entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners. ….”
(Emphasis Supplied)
16. No doubt, in exceptional cases where the court has expressly
prohibited the extension of the benefit to those who have not
approached the court till then or in cases where a grievance in personam
is redressed, the matter may acquire a different dimension, and the
department may be justified in denying the relief to an individual who
claims the extension of the benefit of the said judgment.
17. That is not the situation here. In the submissions too, the
respondents have not been able to point out any valid justification as to
how the applicants who obtained the benefit from the AFT, Principal
Bench in OA No. 111 of 2013 and batch are not identically situated with
the appellant. Like the applicants who succeeded, the appellant was also
ripe for the third chance before the amended para 4(a) of AI No. 37 of
1978 was introduced on 20.03.2013. The Principal Bench of the AFT, in
OA No. 111 of 2013, after clearly holding that the applicants therein
were denied the third chance, directed consideration of their cases for
permanent absorption by granting one-time age relaxation by
considering them 12 under the unamended policy.
18. The respondent authorities on their own should have extended
the benefit of the judgment of AFT, Principal Bench in OA No.111 of
2013 and batch to the appellant. To illustrate, take the case of the valiant
Indian soldiers bravely guarding the frontiers at Siachen or in other
difficult terrain. Thoughts on conditions of service and job perquisites
will be last in their mind. Will it be fair to tell them that they will not be
given relief even if they are similarly situated, since the judgment they
seek to rely on, was passed in the case of certain applicants alone who
Page 19 of 22
Shivgan
9 &10-WP-2651-2026+.DOC
moved the court? We think that would be a very unfair scenario.
Accepting the stand of the respondents in this case would result in this
Court putting its imprimatur on an unreasonable stand adopted by the
authorities.
19. The stand of the Department relying on the judgment of this
Court in State of Maharashtra and Another vs. Chandrakant Anant
Kulkarni and Others, (1981) 4 SCC 130 to contend that mere reduction
in chance of consideration did not result in deprivation of any right does
not appeal to us. The appellant’s case is founded on the principle of
discrimination. What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the
gander. If the applicants in O.A. No. 111 of 2013, whom we find are
identically situated to the appellant, were found to be eligible to be given
a third chance for promotion, because they acquired eligibility before the
amendment to AI No. 37 of 1978 on 20.03.2013, we find no reason why
the appellant should not be treated alike.”
15. Finally, having regard to the Respondent's repeated insistence on
compelling ambulance drivers to approach the courts to seek parity in wages,
especially in view of the fact that the issue is settled by a long line of court
decisions, we reiterate the direction of this Court in Paragraph 12 of the decision in
Dhiraj Wankhede (supra at pg. 14) as under: -
“12. ….. we also make it clear that these benefits shall be extendable to all
other similarly situated contractual drivers who are not party to this
petition”
16. The Respondents' blatant disregard for this Court's earlier directives and the
numerous judicial rulings clearly establishing the law on this matter has resulted in
multiple unnecessary legal battles involving contractual ambulance drivers
demanding equal wages. Some drivers have yet to receive overdue wages. Although
previous rulings mandated the Respondents to pay these drivers wages at least
Page 20 of 22
Shivgan
9 &10-WP-2651-2026+.DOC
equal to the minimum pay scale for regular drivers from the date of filing their
petitions, we now instruct the Respondents to pay the Petitioners the same wages
w.e.f. from 22nd February 2021, the date when the Supreme Court upheld the
Dhiraj Wankhede judgment (supra at pg. 14).
17. Thus, weighing all these relevant considerations and keeping in view all the
aspects of the matter, we pass the following order: -
ORDER
i. The Respondents are directed to pay the Petitioners’ wages at the minimum
of the applicable pay scale (the lowest grade in the regular pay scale) for
regular ambulance drivers.
ii. The arrears of wages shall be paid from 22 nd February 2021, i.e., the date on
which the Supreme Court upheld the decision of this Court in the matter of
Dhiraj S/o Sudhakarrao Wankhede and others vs The Zilla Parishad,
Chandrapur, through its Chief Executive Officer or from the date of
joining, whichever is later.
iii. The arrears shall be paid within 3 months of the date of this Order.
iv. There will be no costs.
18. We hope that we are not called upon to adjudicate future cases involving
identical issues involved in the present matter relating to quantum of wages
payable to contractual ambulance drivers, as we expect the Respondents to uphold
the established legal position and avoid forcing these individuals to seek court relief
against the Respondents themselves.
Page 21 of 22
Shivgan
9 &10-WP-2651-2026+.DOC
19. The rule is accordingly made absolute.
20. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the State of
Maharashtra and the Secretary, Department of Rural Development shall circulate a
copy of the present Judgment and Order to the Chief Executive Officers of all the
Zilla Parishads in the State of Maharashtra, with instructions to adhere to the
settled position of law relating to the issue involved in the present matter.
21. No costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
SHAMBHAVI
NILESH
SHIVGAN
Digitally signed by
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
SHIVGAN
Date: 2026.09.02
12:49:17 +0530
Page 22 of 22
Shivgan
Checking your session…