Facts of the Case

This is a batch of Review Applications before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, arising out of a group of writ petitions filed by contractual Ambulance Drivers seeking regularisation and service benefits against various Zilla Parishads in Maharashtra. This is a service-law/review-jurisdiction matter; it does not involve any question of GST law — a passing reference to "GST to be levied" appears only in connection with a government communication about the format for computing drivers' salary components, and is incidental to the service dispute.

The original writ petitioners were Ambulance Drivers engaged on a contractual basis under a scheme floated by the Union of India through the National Health Mission (NHM), with 60% funding from the Union of India and 40% from the State of Maharashtra, and deployed by contractors at Primary Health Centres under the administrative area of Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. Relying on earlier decisions of coordinate benches — Dhiraj Wankhede vs Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, and Nagendrayya Panchalingayya Hiremath vs State of Maharashtra — in which similarly-placed ambulance drivers had been granted the minimum pay scale of the lowest regular grade, the writ petitions concerning Osmanabad were also allowed by common order. Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad then filed the present Review Applications, contending that its case was materially different: unlike Chandrapur, Nagpur or Bhandara, it had never floated the tender, signed the contract, or issued appointment orders to these drivers, and it had neither been served notice in several of the original petitions nor been given an opportunity to file its reply, including after the prayer clauses were amended without being supplied to it.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Review Applications were maintainable, applying the settled principle that review lies only for an error apparent on the face of the record or denial of a hearing, and not merely to reargue the merits.
  2. Whether the original orders directing payment of minimum regular pay scale to the ambulance drivers were passed without impleading necessary parties — the Union of India (as scheme-funder) and the contractors (as actual employers) — and without affording Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad an opportunity to file its reply.
  3. Whether the factual position of Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad was genuinely distinguishable from that of the Chandrapur, Nagpur and Bhandara Zilla Parishads, where the original orders had been passed.

Petitioner's Arguments (Review Applicants – Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad)

  • Out of 21 original writ petitions, no notice was issued to the Zilla Parishad in 13 of them, and in the remaining 8, its affidavit in reply was never filed.
  • The prayer clauses were amended on 14.01.2021 without serving copies on the Zilla Parishad or hearing it before allowing the amendment.
  • No contract with any contractor and no appointment order relating to the ambulance drivers was ever placed on record, because Osmanabad Zilla Parishad had never floated any tender, signed any contract, or issued any appointment order — unlike the Chandrapur Zilla Parishad.
  • The Project Director of the National Health Mission (Union of India) and the contractors who had actually engaged the drivers were not impleaded as respondents, despite being necessary parties.
  • The original orders were passed mechanically by following the Chandrapur and Mumbai Principal Seat precedents without examining these material distinctions.

Respondent's Arguments (Original Writ Petitioners – Ambulance Drivers)

  • Conceded that the Union of India and the contractors had not been arrayed as respondents in the writ petitions.
  • Argued that all ambulance drivers across the State were identically placed, having worked for 10 to 15 years providing essential ambulance services at Primary Health Centres, and were entitled to parity with drivers who had already secured relief in the Chandrapur and Mumbai batch matters.
  • Contended that since the facts mirrored those earlier decided cases, the orders under review were just and proper, with no apparent error warranting review.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found that the Union of India, as funder and originator of the scheme, and the contractors, as the entities that selected, appointed and paid the drivers, were necessary parties who had not been impleaded, and that Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad had not been given a fair opportunity to file its reply.
  • It held that Osmanabad's position was materially distinguishable from Chandrapur, Nagpur and Bhandara, since Osmanabad had never floated a tender, entered into any contract, or issued any appointment order to the drivers, and had not funded their engagement.
  • The Review Applications were accordingly partly allowed, and the orders under review were partly recalled to the extent of restoring the writ petitions to the file for fresh consideration after impleading the Union of India and the concerned contractors as respondents.
  • To balance equities pending fresh hearing, the Court directed that the drivers continue to be paid the minimum regular pay scale already directed, and that their contractual employment not be terminated without leave of the Court, while also directing the State's Health Department communication on salary/GST computation formats to be acted upon for determining arrears.
  • The pending Civil Applications were disposed of as not surviving, and notice was directed to be issued to the newly added respondents, returnable on 05.04.2023.

Important Clarification

This order shows the limited scope of review jurisdiction — a review can succeed where a necessary party was not impleaded or a fair hearing was denied, even without disturbing the underlying relief altogether. The passing mention of a "GST" column in a government salary-computation format is purely administrative housekeeping for computing contractor payments, and the order otherwise contains no discussion of GST law or liability.

Sections Involved

  • Order XLVII, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Review of judgment
  • Article 226, Constitution of India — Writ jurisdiction (underlying writ petitions)
  • National Health Mission scheme guidelines (Union of India)

Decision – In Favour of

The Review Applications filed by Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad were partly allowed — the orders under review were partly recalled and the underlying writ petitions restored for fresh hearing after impleading necessary parties, while interim protection of pay and continued employment was preserved for the ambulance drivers. The matter was thus disposed of procedurally rather than by a final determination on merits in favour of either side.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad
  • Case No.: Review Application (Civil) No. 51 of 2023 in WP/6235/2020, with connected Review Applications and Civil Applications
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh
  • Date of Order: 10 March 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.