Contractual ambulance drivers are entitled to minimum regular-driver pay under equal-pay principles.

The Petitioners were engaged by the respective Zilla Parishads as contractual ambulance drivers at Primary Health Centres in Pune.

They performed ambulance-driving duties for 24-hour shifts but were paid between ₹8,000 and ₹11,000 per month, often belatedly.

They claimed wages equivalent to the minimum of the applicable regular pay scale—namely, the lowest grade payable to regular Class III ambulance drivers—on the basis of the principle of “equal pay for equal work,” together with arrears from the date of joining.

Since the reliefs and legal issues in all the petitions were identical, the Bombay High Court heard and disposed of them by a common judgment.

The Respondents did not file affidavits in reply, and the Petitioners relied on a consistent line of Supreme Court and Bombay High Court decisions concerning contractual ambulance drivers.

Whether contractual ambulance drivers performing duties equivalent to those of regular ambulance drivers are entitled to wages at the minimum of the applicable regular pay scale under the principle of equal pay for equal work.

Whether the Petitioners were entitled to arrears of such wages from 22 February 2021—the date on which the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the decision in Dhiraj Wankhede—or from the date of joining, whichever was later.

Whether similarly situated contractual ambulance drivers who had not approached the Court should also receive the benefit of the settled legal position without being required to institute separate proceedings.

The Court applied the constitutional and equitable principle of “equal pay for equal work,” as authoritatively explained in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, under which a temporary or contractual employee performing the same duties and responsibilities as a regular employee cannot be paid less than the minimum of the regular pay scale.

It followed Dhiraj S/o Sudhakarrao Wankhede v. Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 13080, which specifically directed parity for contractual ambulance drivers; the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to that decision on 22 February 2021.

The Court also relied on Nagendrayya P. Hiremath v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 6920, Rajendra Kamble v. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 2012 of 2021, decided on 1 July 2021, and Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Solapur v. Ashok Dhondiba Meher, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1354, in which the Supreme Court upheld payment of the minimum regular pay scale to contractual ambulance drivers performing public-health functions.

The Court further relied on Navnath Bhaskar Dive v. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 1913 of 2024, decided on 30 August 2024, regarding arrears, continuity of contractual engagement, and direct payment safeguards.

Finally, relying on Inderpal Yadav v. Union of India, Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, (1975) 4 SCC 714, K.I. Shephard v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 431, and Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 942, the Court held that similarly situated persons should ordinarily receive the benefit of a judgment without being compelled to litigate individually.

The Court found that the Petitioners were performing the onerous and socially essential function of driving ambulances for Primary Health Centres, thereby discharging public-health obligations undertaken by the State through the Zilla Parishads.

Applying Jagjit Singh, Dhiraj Wankhede, and Ashok Dhondiba Meher, the Court held that the contractual nature of engagement could not justify payment below the minimum of the regular pay scale where the duties and responsibilities were substantially identical.

The Respondents’ continued refusal was particularly unjustifiable because the same legal issue had repeatedly been decided against them and the Supreme Court had upheld the relevant Bombay High Court decisions.

The Court also considered it discriminatory to grant parity only to drivers who had incurred the expense of litigation while denying it to similarly situated drivers who had not approached the Court; the established principle required the State to extend the benefit generally, absent circumstances making the relief strictly personal.

In view of the Supreme Court’s affirmation of Dhiraj Wankhede on 22 February 2021, the Court selected that date as the starting point for arrears, subject to the qualification that no driver would receive arrears for a period preceding his or her date of joining.

Arrears were ordered from 22 February 2021 or the respective date of joining, whichever was later, and were to be paid within three months of the judgment.

The Court reiterated that the benefit should extend to all similarly situated contractual ambulance drivers, whether or not they had instituted proceedings.

It directed the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and the Secretary, Department of Rural Development, to circulate the judgment to all Chief Executive Officers of Zilla Parishads in Maharashtra with instructions to comply with the settled law.

No costs were awarded.