*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 942 WRIT PETITION NO.12516 OF 2026 Rajkumar Madhukar Kukale And Another VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others ….. Shri. Pramod A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioners Shri. V. M. Kagne, AGP for the Respondent – State. ….. AND WRIT PETITION NO.1681 OF 2024 Nilesh Nanabhau Bhadane and Another VERSUS The Union of India Through Its Secretary and Others …. Shri. Pramod A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioners Shri. N. D. Batule, AGP for the Respondent – State. Shri. N. N. Desale, Advocate for Respondent No.5 …. AND WRIT PETITION NO.11798 OF 2024 Shri. Amanulla Kha Sher Kha Pathan and Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Deptt. Of Public Health, Mumbai and Others …. Shri. Pramod A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioners Shri. S. R. Wakale, AGP for the Respondent – State. …. CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI & ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER 2026 2026:BHC-AUG:44318-DB *2* P. C. :- 1. Writ Petition Nos.1681 of 2024 and 11798 of 2024 are not on board. Upon mentioning, the same are taken on board. 2. Indisputably, the case of the petitioners is covered by the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1913 of 2024 and connected matters on 30.08.2024. Said order is confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7288 of 2025 by order dated 19.08.2026. 3. In the light of above and for the reasons stated in the order passed in Writ Petition No.1913 of 2024, writ petitions are partly allowed with 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 of not to be replaced with another contractual employee, would be restricted only to the contractual working of such Drivers, and in the event of any misconduct/misdemeanor/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. *3* (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 the Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Solapur versus Ashok Dhondiba Meher & Ors. in SLP(C) No. 8395/ 2021 decided on 23.03.2022, 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 Accounts. Such payment shall not be a ground for alleging that the contract is sham and bogus and no employer/employee relationship would be deemed to be established between such Ambulance Drivers vis-a-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 Supreme Court (5 Judges Bench) in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and Others, dated 30/08/2001, reported in [AIR 2001 SC 3527]. (e) The conclusions of this Court in Dhiraj Sudhakarrao Wankhede and others Vs. the Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur and Others (Writ Petition No. 2247/2014) decided on 20/11/2019, which have been sustained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, would not come in 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 and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others, [(2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1], 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 *4* 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. (ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) GGP