Orissa High Court
Mayadhar Nayak & Anr vs State Bank Of India & Ors. …. Opposite … on 20 June, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2025 18:00:06
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C)No. 24692 of 2012 with W.P.(C)No. 15989 of 2020
(In the matters of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Mayadhar Nayak & Anr. .... Petitioner(s)
(In both the Writ Petitions)
-versus-
State Bank of India & Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajib Rath, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Bibhudendra Dash, Adv.
(for SBI)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-14.05.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-20.06.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. Since both the Writ Petitions involve common questions of fact and law,
they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common
judgment. However, this Court felt it apposite to deal the W.P.(C)
Page 1 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2025 18:00:06
No.24692 of 2012 as the leading case for proper adjudication of both the
cases.
2. The Petitioners seek a direction to the Opposite Parties for
regularization of their services, pay parity under the principle of ‘equal
pay for equal work’, release of bonus for the financial year 2011-12, and
extension of all temporary service benefits as granted to similarly
situated employees of the Opposite Parties Bank.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The Petitioners, Mayadhar Nayak and Baina Nayak, have been
engaged as Sub-Menial Staff/Sweepers at the Government Treasury
Branch of the State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar since 1995, on a daily
wage basis. They have been discharging such duties continuously for
nearly 30 years.
(ii) The Government Treasury Branch of the Bank occupies more than
11,000 square feet, spread over three levels comprising the upper
basement, ground floor, and first floor. The premises include eight
toilets and six urinals. The Petitioners have been performing cleaning
duties in the said premises along with outsourced employees.
(iii) The Petitioners are presently receiving a consolidated monthly
remuneration of Rs.16,406/-.
(iv) The Petitioners had earlier approached this Court in OJC No.13193 of
1999 seeking regularization of their services. The said petition was
disposed of on 5 December 2008 with a direction to the Opposite Party
Bank to consider their cases for regularization as and when vacancies
Page 2 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2025 18:00:06
arise in the future. It was further directed that they shall be permitted
to continue in service so long as work is available and shall not be
replaced by any fresh hands. The remuneration payable to them was
directed to be as per the applicable rates under the Minimum Wages
Act.
(v) The Petitioners again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 8906
of 2007, alleging that the Opposite Parties were seeking to fill up the
posts of Sweepers and other menial staff without considering their
claim for appointment. The said petition was disposed of on 24 July
2007 with a direction to the Opposite Parties to consider the Petitioners’
cases for appointment to the post of Sweeper, if such vacancy arises,
keeping in view the length of their engagement and the services
rendered by them under the Bank.
(vi) The present Writ Petition, W.P.(C) No.24692 of 2012, has been filed
seeking recognition of the Petitioners as temporary employees and for
the grant of bonus and other benefits and allowances extended to
similarly situated temporary staff.
(vii) The Petitioners have also filed W.P.(C) No.15989 of 2020 seeking
regularization of their services, contending that the Opposite Parties
have regularized the services of one Sri Bijay Kumar Panda, a similarly
situated employee engaged as a Liftman.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
Page 3 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2025 18:00:06
(i) The Petitioners submitted that they have been continuously
discharging duties as Sub-Menial Staff or Sweepers at the Government
Treasury Branch of the State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar since 1995 on
a daily wage basis, and despite nearly three decades of service, they
have not been considered for regularization.
(ii) The Petitioners contended that they are performing the same duties as
regular Class IV sub-menial staff and sweepers in other branches of the
Bank and are therefore entitled to regularization and pay parity under
the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’.
(iii) The Petitioners submitted that they are being paid a consolidated
amount of Rs.16,406/- per month, while other temporary employees of
the Bank are receiving Rs.27,443/- for the same or similar work. The
Petitioners contended that this differential treatment amounts to
discrimination and exploitation. They are entitled to be paid arrears
corresponding to the difference in remuneration for the entire period
of continuous service.
(iv) The Petitioners further contended that the Bank has exploited their
services since the date of their engagement. Though the nature of work
is perennial and regular, their services have not been regularized, and
they continue to be treated as temporary workers without security or
proper benefits.
(v) The Petitioners further submitted that they have been working against
two sanctioned but vacant posts of Sweepers, which arose due to the
death of one employee in 1999 and the retirement of another in 2015.
Page 4 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2025 18:00:06
However, no steps have been taken by the Bank to absorb them against
those existing vacancies.
(vi) The Petitioners submitted that the Chief Manager of the concerned
branch, vide letter dated 25.11.1998, recommended to the Assistant
General Manager, Zonal Office, for the creation of two full-time posts
of Sweepers. It was stated that casual workers such as the Petitioners
were performing essential sweeping duties and that the circumstances
warranted the sanction of regular posts.
(vii) The Petitioners further submitted that the Assistant General Manager
had acknowledged the continued need for sweeping work and stated
that such work was being carried out with the help of casual labourers.
Despite such clear acknowledgment, no action was taken for
regularizing the services of the Petitioners.
(viii) The Petitioners submitted that they had been receiving bonus since
2006 like other temporary employees, but the Opposite Parties
arbitrarily withheld it in 2011 and again deducted ₹7,000 in 2023
without notice or proper justification. Despite repeated representations
and an RTI appeal, no valid reason was initially provided, and only
later Opposite Party No. 3 belatedly claimed the amount was recovered
towards bonus. The Petitioners, drawing ₹16,406, fall within the bonus
eligibility under SBI’s e-circular dated 27.09.2022, yet the Petitioners
were denied the same while similarly placed employees earning
₹27,443 received full temporary benefits.
(ix) The Petitioners contended that the Government Treasury Branch of the
Bank occupies over 11,000 square feet across the upper basement,
Page 5 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2025 18:00:06
ground floor, and first floor, and comprises eight toilets and six urinals.
They have been solely responsible for maintaining cleanliness in the
premises along with a few outsourced workers.
(x) The Petitioners contended that there exists no legal impediment to their
regularization. The bipartite settlement between the Bank and the All
India Staff Federation expired on 31.03.1997 and was only applicable to
employees on the temporary list as on that date. Since then, the Bank
has not entered into any new settlement and has regularized similarly
placed temporary employees. Thus, the earlier settlement cannot be
relied upon to deny the Petitioners’ claim.
(xi) The Petitioners submitted that they are in precarious financial
circumstances. The lead Petitioner Mayadhar Nayak supports his wife,
two children, and a father aged about 80 years. Petitioner Baina Nayak
is the sole caretaker of a mentally and physically disabled child and
another son, all of whom are dependent on his meagre income. The
prolonged denial of fair remuneration and regularization has caused
them undue hardship.
(xii) The Petitioners contended that their representation dated 26.12.2019
addressed to the Chairman of the Bank was not duly considered and
was instead disposed of by the Deputy General Manager (B&O) on
26.07.2021, who had no jurisdiction to take such a decision. As a result,
they were compelled to file CONTC No. 1913 of 2022, which is
presently sub judice before this Court.
(xiii) The Petitioners submitted that under applicable Banking Regulations,
temporary Class IV employees are entitled to benefits such as House
Page 6 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2025 18:00:06
Rent Allowance, Medical Allowance, ESI coverage, and annual
increments for every completed year of service. Despite making
repeated representations to the Assistant General Manager of the
Government Treasury Branch, they have been denied these statutory
benefits since 1999.
(xiv) The Petitioners contended that the Bank has engaged other individuals,
namely Bipin Bihari Rout and Brajabandhu Dehuri, through M/s
Nabajyoti Services for maintenance and housekeeping work. While
these outsourced workers have been given contractual appointments,
the Petitioners, who have rendered long years of service, remain
unrecognized, causing them severe mental agony.
(xv) The Petitioners submitted that one Sri Bijaya Kumar Panda, a similarly
situated Class IV employee, had his services regularized pursuant to an
industrial dispute. The Labour Court, by Award dated 09.07.2010 in
I.D. Case No. 1 of 2003, directed his regularization against a sanctioned
post of Liftman. Although the Management challenged the said award
in W.P.(C) No.19078 of 2010, this Court upheld the Award vide the
judgment dated 11.07.2016. The Supreme Court also affirmed the said
judgment and upheld the direction for regularization, making it
effective from 17 May 2018.
(xvi) The Petitioners, having rendered continuous service for well over 240
days annually, are entitled to be treated as temporary employees in
terms of the Respondent Bank’s own guidelines. As per Clause 6.1(iv),
Chapter 6 of the Reference Book on Staff Matters, temporary employees
who have completed at least 24 months of active service either without
Page 7 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2025 18:00:06
a break or with permissible breaks are eligible for benefits such as
annual increments, leave fare concession and leave encashment as
available to permanent employees. Despite fulfilling these conditions,
the Petitioners have been denied such benefits, in clear violation of the
Bank’s internal policies.
(xvii) The Petitioners submitted that multiple judicial pronouncements have
recognized the entitlement of long-serving employees, engaged in
sanctioned posts and performing regular duties, to be considered for
regularization in appropriate cases.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
5. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Petitioners are engaged as daily wage workers at the Government
Treasury Branch of the Bank solely in compliance with the directions of
this Court in O.J.C. No. 13193/1999. They have not been appointed
against any sanctioned vacancy, nor has any court recognized them as
temporary employees of the Bank. Their engagement remains litigious,
and their remuneration is governed strictly by the Minimum Wages
Act.
(ii) In the past, to address staffing exigencies, the Bank engaged temporary
and daily wage workers. Pursuant to multiple settlements with the All
India SBI Staff Federation under the Industrial Disputes Act, such
employees were classified based on service duration and absorbed
against vacancies up to 31.03.1997. These settlements were
implemented through interviews and preparation of panels, which
Page 8 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2025 18:00:06lapsed thereafter. No right to regularization survives beyond the said
date.
(iii) The Petitioners’ assertion that similarly placed employees continue to
receive benefits is incorrect. Those individuals are continuing pursuant
to specific court orders in matters such as O.J.C. Nos. 3763/1997 and
12827/1999. Similarly, the Petitioners’ own continuation is by virtue of
O.J.C. No.13193/1999 and not due to any fresh engagement or
acknowledgment by the Bank. Therefore, their employment cannot be
equated to that of recognized temporary employees.
(iv) The Petitioners’ reliance on the case of Sri Bijay Kumar Panda is
misplaced. His regularization was based on an adjudicated industrial
dispute affirmed by the Labour Court, this Court, and the Supreme
Court. He was appointed against a sanctioned technical post, unlike the
Petitioners, whose roles are non-technical and were never part of a
sanctioned cadre.
(v) Wage slips labelling the Petitioners as “temporary employees” were
erroneously issued by an unauthorized official and carry no legal
weight. The Bank has since taken corrective steps. Such clerical
references cannot confer a legal right or alter the nature of their
engagement.
(vi) The petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy under the
Industrial Disputes Act, and without first exhausting the said statutory
recourse, the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to
be dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy.
Page 9 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2025 18:00:06
(vii) The Bank has not directly engaged any persons against Class-IV posts.
All menial work, including housekeeping and maintenance, is now
outsourced through vendors under the Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Act, 1970. Such roles are casual in nature, and those engaged
are employees of contractors, not the Bank.
(viii) The Petitioners’ engagement is surplus and continued only to comply
with judicial directions. There are no sanctioned vacancies for Class-IV
posts, and the Bank has no intention to recruit for such roles, which are
now operationally redundant. The Reference Book relied upon by the
Petitioners is outdated and has no bearing on the current staffing
policy.
(ix) The Bank has complied with all tender procedures for outsourcing, and
there is no breach of court orders. Assertions of harassment or mental
agony are wholly unfounded. Outsourcing is lawful and necessary to
meet modern cleaning standards that require industrial-grade
equipment and trained professionals, which are services beyond the
Petitioners’ scope.
(x) The claim for bonus or temporary benefits is untenable. The Petitioners
were never regularized or classified as temporary employees under
Bank regulations. As per Section 2(vi)(h) of the Payment of Wages Act,
1936, “wages” do not include bonus. Therefore, the relief sought
amounts to a modification of the order dated 05.12.2008 passed in O.J.C.
No. 13193/1999 and is wholly misconceived.
Page 10 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2025 18:00:06
IV. ANALYSIS:
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed
on record.
7. The core issue in the present writ petitions is whether the petitioners,
who have been engaged as daily wage workers since 1995, are entitled
to regularization of service, parity in pay with temporary employees,
and the release of bonus and service-related benefits.
8. The issue of regularization of temporary or daily wage employees has
been the subject of consistent judicial scrutiny.
9. It is now well settled that there exists no vested or absolute right to
regularization. Courts have acknowledged the State’s obligation to
uphold fairness and dignity of labour, but have simultaneously held
that mere continuation in service does not, in itself, confer any
entitlement to absorption or grant regular or temporary status, unless
the initial engagement was made in accordance with applicable
recruitment rules.
10. In this regard, this Court may seek the guidance of the Supreme Court
in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi1 observed:
“43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in
public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and
since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court
would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding
a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the
need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with
Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the1
(2006) 4 SCC 1.
Page 11 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2025 18:00:06
scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down
the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment
is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition
among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right
on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the
appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it
were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual
basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued.
Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made
permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has
also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee
or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the
term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be
absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the
strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was
not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged
by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent
regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees
whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc
employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do
not acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Article
226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue
directions for absorption, regularisation, or permanent
continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly
and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because an
employee had continued under cover of an order of the court,
which we have described as “litigious employment” in the
earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any
right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact,
in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing
interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee
approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible
Page 12 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2025 18:00:06
for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no
prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction
to continue his employment would hold up the regular
procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of
paying an employee who is really not required. The courts
must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly
with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or
its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to
facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory
mandates. It is further trite law that matters relating to
recruitment fall exclusively within the domain of the
employer, which in the context of public employment
includes the State and its instrumentalities. The creation of
posts and formulation of policies for regularization are policy
matters within the discretion of the employer. Judicial
interference in such domains is circumscribed. In the absence
of a sanctioned post, no direction can be issued compelling
the employer to create posts and absorb persons continuing
in service.”
11. Further, it is well settled that the creation or sanction of posts lies
exclusively within the domain of the employer and constitutes a policy
decision falling within the employer’s prerogative. Courts cannot
compel the creation of posts or direct regularization in the absence of
sanctioned vacancies.
12. In Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen2, the Supreme
Court observed:
“37. Creation and abolition of posts and regularisation are
purely executive functions vide P.U. Joshi v. Accountant2
(2007) 1 SCC 408.
Page 13 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2025 18:00:06
General [(2003) 2 SCC 632 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 191] . Hence,
the court cannot create a post where none exists. Also, we
cannot issue any direction to absorb the respondents or
continue them in service, or pay them salaries of regular
employees, as these are purely executive functions. This
Court cannot arrogate to itself the powers of the executive
or legislature. There is broad separation of powers under the
Constitution, and the judiciary, too, must know its limits.”
13. Similarly, in Union of India v. Ilmo Devi,3 the Supreme Court observed:
“13. …The High Court cannot, in exercise of the power
under Article 226, issue a mandamus to direct the
Department to sanction and create the posts. The High
Court, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution, also cannot direct the Government and/or the
Department to formulate a particular regularisation policy.
Framing of any scheme is no function of the Court and is
the sole prerogative of the Government. Even the creation
and/or sanction of the posts is also the sole prerogative of the
Government and the High Court, in exercise of the power
under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot issue
mandamus and/or direct to create and sanction the posts.”
14. Turning to the facts of the present case, the petitioners have been
engaged in cleaning and maintenance work at the Treasury Branch of
the Opposite Party Bank since 1995. Their initial engagement was not
against any sanctioned vacancy and was not preceded by a formal
recruitment process.
3
(2021) 20 SCC 290.
Page 14 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2025 18:00:06
15. They were allowed to continue in service under orders passed by this
Court in OJC No. 13193 of 1999, which was disposed of on 05.12.2008
with directions to allow them to continue as long as work was available,
and not to replace them with fresh hands.
16. The record further indicates that the Bank has since shifted to
outsourcing its housekeeping requirements, aligning with modern
standards that involve trained personnel and industrial-grade
equipment. This administrative choice is a matter of policy and cannot
be construed as punitive action directed at the petitioners.
17. The Bank has also stated that there are no sanctioned Class-IV vacancies
and no plans to initiate recruitment to such posts, which have become
operationally redundant.
18. While this Court does not disregard the long and uninterrupted service
rendered by the petitioners, it is well-settled that mere length of service
does not by itself confer a right to regularization. The consistent
position in law is that engagement on a daily wage or casual basis,
however prolonged, cannot mature into a claim for regular
appointment in the absence of sanctioned posts and adherence to a
lawful selection process.
19. The petitioners’ claim for parity in pay, temporary status, and other
service benefits is equally unsustainable. They have not been
recognized as temporary employees under any recruitment rule or
policy of the Bank. Reliance on expired bipartite settlements or internal
communications cannot override the statutory prerequisites of formal
appointment. There is also no material to show that the petitioners are
Page 15 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Jul-2025 18:00:06
similarly situated with any other class of employees who have been
regularized through proper procedure.
V. CONCLUSION:
20. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view
that the Petitioners have not made out a case warranting judicial
intervention for regularization or the grant of service-related benefits.
21. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed.
22. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 20th June, 2025
Page 16 of 16
[ad_1]
Source link