06-2023 Zilla Parishad v. Jagjit Singh & Ors.

petitioners as there is no dispute that their work is similar to the work of the regular drivers.”

6. Mr. S.V. Sohoni and Mr. A.Y. Kapgate who appear on behalf of the review applicant would submit that the direction issued supra is an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the nature of duties discharged by regular drivers and contractual drivers is not identical.

7. Mrs. S.S. Wandile who appears on behalf of the petitioners-contractual drivers, would emphasize 6 mca711.22 that while two affidavits-in-response are filed by the Zilla Parishad in Writ Petition 2247/2014, the Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur did not contend that the nature of work performed by contractual drivers and regular drivers is different. Mrs. S.S. Wandile would submit that au contraire, the contractual drivers are required to be on duty for twenty-four hours without holidays while the regular drivers have fixed eight working hours daily and enjoy holidays.

8. Mrs. S.S. Wandile submits that similar order is passed by the Principal Bench in petitions preferred by Ambulance Drivers working on contractual basis on the establishment of Solapur and Kolhapur Zilla Parishads, following the judgment under review. Solapur and Kolhapur Zilla Parishads approached the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) 8395/2021 which is dismissed by speaking order dated 23-3-2022. 7 mca711.22

9. The Supreme Court noted that the Principal Bench followed the judgment in Writ Petition 2247/2014, Dhiraj s/o Sudhakarrao Wankhede and others v. Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur (judgment under review) and observes thus - “10. In the above circumstance, it is noticed that in the present facts the 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, in the regular pay-scale extended to the regular employees holding the same 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 though 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 obligation of the State. Therefore, in such circumstances, the minimum relief that has been granted by the High Court would not call for interference. 8 mca711.22 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 S. 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.”

10. We note that while the Special Leave Petition preferred by the review applicant is dismissed by non speaking order, the judgments rendered by the Principal Bench which follow the judgment under review are confirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissing the Special Leave Petition by speaking order.

11. We see no error, muchless error apparent, in the judgment under review.

12. The review application is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) which shall 9 mca711.22 be deposited by the review applicant with the registry within two weeks from the date this order is uploaded on the High Court website. The petitioners-contractual drivers, who have entered appearance in the review application, are permitted to withdraw the said amount equally. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) (ROHIT B. DEO, J.) adgokar MANOHARRAO ADGOKAR Signing Date:05.07.2023 10:11