The petitioner, Sweeper on daily wage basis craving for
regularisation in service in the post of Housekeeper-
cum-Peon/Peon, filed this writ petition craving for
grant of following relief(s):
2.1. The petitioner, possessing prescribed requisite
qualification (Class VIII pass), worked in the Branch
uninterruptedly since 2005 and, therefore, he is
entitled to be considered for regularization in service in
the post of Peon/ Housekeeper-cum-Peon, even as the
Bank in Circular bearing No.CHO/PAS/08/2015-16,
dated 01.09.2015 clearly envisioned "for conversion of
all Part-Time Sweepers/Full Time Sweepers as Full
Time Housekeeper-cum-Peon". The Short Recital of
said Circular reads as follows:
"With a view to meet the requirement of the Bank and
aspiration of the employees in Full Time Sweepers/Part
Time Sweepers to become Full Time Peon; it is decided
to convert all the existing FTS/PTS as the Full Time
Housekeeper-cum-Peon."
2.2. Drawing parity with that of those similarly situated
persons, namely Sri Niranjan Das (joined as casual
sweeper on 24.10.2008 and regularised in service by
Letter dated 16.09.2015 of Zonal Office); and Sri
Krushna Chandra Karan (regularised as Sweeper on
consolidated wage basis by Letter dated 05.02.2014 of
Zonal Manager), whose services have been regularized
in other Branches of UCO Bank, it is urged that the
case of the petitioner could not have been sidetracked.
Hence, this writ petition.
3. A Counter Affidavit has come to be filed by the
opposite parties refuting to grant the relief claimed by
the petitioner. The following stand is taken by the
opposite parties:
"13. That with an objective to improve the financial
strata of the existing part-time sweepers on scale
wages and to address the need of peons in the
branches, the Management of the opposite parties-
Bank held negotiations with the All India UCO
Bank Employees‟ Federation, the Majority
Organization for Workmen in the bank under the
provisions of IR policy for workmen staff and
detailed discussions took place on different
aspects of the issue and a Memorandum of
Settlement was reached between the Management
of the opposite parties-Bank and the All India UCO
Bank Employees‟ Federation (Majority
Organization for Workmen) on 06.07.2015 in the
atter of conversion of Part-Time Sweepers/Full-
Time Sweepers as Full-Time Housekeeper-cum-
Peon. Subsequently, the proposal was placed by
Human Resource Management department, Head
Office of the opposite parties-Bank before the
Board of Directors of the opposite parties-Bank
and the Board accorded its approval to the
proposal for conversion of all part-time
sweepers/Full-time sweepers as Full-time
Housekeeper-cum-Peons.
Hence, it is denied that the petitioner is eligible to
be appointed as Full-time Housekeeper-cum-Peon
as he does not come within the purview of the
above settlement."
3.1. The opposite parties-UCO Bank disputing the factual
averment of the petitioner submitted that while
working in the Bhubaneswar CRP Headquarters
Branch on daily wage basis the petitioner left said
Branch and started working at Bidyutmarg Branch as
casual sweeper on daily wage basis. However, the
Management took a decision to regularise the services
of the casual sweepers working in different Branches
as on 31.12.2008 as sweeper on consolidated wage
basis.
3.2. By virtue of Letter dated 13.06.2009 the UCO Bank
the casual sweeper is regularised in service subject to
certain qualification specified therein. In Letter bearing
No.ZO/BBSR/PSD/186/2009-10, dated 30.07.2009
was issued by Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar it was
stipulated that certain casual sweepers working as on
31.12.2008 were regularised in service. In the
Memorandum of Settlement dated 27.04.2010 reached
between the Indian Banks‟ Association and the
Workmen Unions, "the part time employees, who were
members of the subordinate staff on consolidated
wages and whose normal working hours per week up
to 3 hours or more than 3 hours but less than 6
hours, were converted as Part Time Sweepers on 1/3rd
scale wages". A Memorandum of Settlement was
reached between the Management of the opposite
parties-Bank and the All India Bank Employees‟
Federation on 06.07.2015 in the matter of conversion
of Part Time Sweepers/Full Time Sweepers as "Full
Time Housekeeping-cum-Peon". Subsequently the
proposal being placed by the Human Resources
Management Department, Head Officer of the Bank
before the Board of Directors of UCO Bank, it got
approval for such conversion. Accordingly detailed
guidelines in Circular No. CHO/PAS/08/2015-16,
dated 01.09.2015 was issued by specifying eligibility
criteria as "All the existing Full Time/Part Time
Sweepers (i.e., PTS-1/3, 1/2, 3/4) who are on
permanent rolls of the Bank as of 31.08.2015".
3.3. The petitioner engaged in Bidyutmarg Branch with
effect from 10.01.2011 as casual sweeper having not
fulfilled eligibility criteria laid down in the Circular
dated 01.09.2015 (Annexure-1 of the writ petition), his
case was rightly not considered for absorption as Full
Time Sweeper/Peon. As the petitioner was engaged as
a "Casual Worker" on daily wage basis with effect from
10.01.2011, but not "Casual Sweeper", he does not
come within the purview of the criteria stipulated in
said Circular and, hence the claim of the petitioner to
be appointed as Full Time Housekeeper-cum-Peon is
fallacious and misconceived.
Submissions of counsel for the petitioner:
4. It is submitted by Sri Surendra Nath Panda, learned
Advocate that the petitioner being initially engaged in
CRP Headquarters Branch of the UCO Bank in
Bhubaneswar on 18.07.2005, on the instruction of
authority concerned was shifted to Bidyut Marg
Branch of the Bank in Bhubaneswar. In addition to
the duty as Sweeper, he has been discharging his
duties as Peon due to inadequacy of staff position in
the said Branch.
4.1. In pursuance of Circular No.CHO/PAS/08/2015-16,
dated 01.09.2016 issued by the Human Resource
Management Department of Head Office of UCO Bank
stating conversion of existing Part Time/Full Time
Sweepers working in different branches of the UCO
Bank as on 31.08.2015 were to be treated as
Housekeeping-cum-Peon. Though one Sri Niranjan
Dash was engaged as Casual Sweeper (shown as
1/3rd Scale Sweeper) on 24.10.2008, vide Letter
No.ZO/BBSR/HRM/STF/ 95, dated 16.09.2015
issued by the Deputy Zonal Head/Zonal Head, Zonal
Office, Bhubaneswar, his service has been converted
to Full Time Housekeeper-cum-Peon. Another similarly
situated person, namely Krushna Chandra Karan,
working as Shree Jagannath Temple Branch was
treated as Sweeper on consolidated wage basis with
effect from 30.04.2010. The petitioner being senior to
them he should have been given preference to be
considered for regularization in service, but the reason
known best to the employer to discriminate. The
authorities having not adhered to the clauses
stipulated in the Memorandum of Settlement between
the Management and the Employees fell in grave error
in not taking up the case of the petitioner.
4.2. It is contended by Sri Surendra Nath Panda, learned
Advocate that even if the petitioner‟s service is not
recognized as working since 2005 seamlessly, at least
from 10.01.2011 the UCO Bank has admitted the
petitioner to have working till date in the Bidyut Marg
Branch in Bhubaneswar. The petitioner having
fulfilled the eligibility criteria stipulated in the
Circular/Guidelines issued by the UCO Bank his
service ought to be directed for consideration of
regularization.
4.3. Thus, winding up his argument, it is submitted by the
learned counsel that the case of the petitioner could
not have been ignored and his service should have
been regularised maintaining parity with those of the
employees whose services have been regularised.
4.4. Since the case of the petitioner was not considered
despite the fact that he has been discharging his
duties as entrusted by the Bank for more than 20
years a representation dated 26.04.2018 was
submitted to the Zonal Manager, Bhubaneswar for his
regularization as Housekeeper-cum-Peon. In view of
principles for regularization in service as set forth by
the various Hon‟ble Courts and taking into
consideration the policy of the UCO Bank in this
respect coupled with the fact that the employees who
joined the Bank much after the petitioner have been
considered for regularization in service, Sri Surendra
Nath Panda, learned Advocate prayed for issue of writ
of mandamus to the opposite parties in this regard.
4.5. Pleading thus, it is sought to be impressed upon this
Court that even if the date of engagement of the
petitioner in Bidyut Marg Branch is taken into
considered, the case of the petitioner cannot be
ignored. It is vehemently contended by Sri Surendera
Nath Panda, learned Advocate that long years of
service can be considered as a valid and germane
ground to construe that the employer-UCO Bank is in
need of such service perennially and having worked for
over a decade possessing requisite qualification, the
petitioner can be found qualified for regularisation in
the service which he has been discharging at present
without any demur from any quarter. The UCO Bank
having exploited the service of the petitioner since
2005 or 2011, as the case may be, the opposite
parties-employer cannot leave the fate of the
petitioner-employee on tenterhooks. For years, the
petitioner has been treated as staff by assigning not
only sweeper work but also work of peon, he cannot be
now left in a lurch without job security. The
Damocles‟s sword of potential termination would be
hanging over his head, unless the long-awaited
regularisation in service gets finally secured.
5. Opposing the contentions advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and refuting claim of the
petitioner for regularisation, Sri Sunil Kumar Swain,
learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties-
Bank submitted that the petitioner having not
satisfied the eligibility criteria cannot be considered for
regularization in service. The Zonal Office,
Bhubaneswar after scrutinizing the list of sweepers
engaged on casual basis, as requested in letter dated
13.06.2009 issued by the Head Office with reference to
eligibility criteria, forwarded applications of seventeen
casual sweepers along with statement disclosing full
particulars of such employees with recommendation to
the Personnel Services Department, Head Office of
UCO Bank for approval. As the petitioner was
deployed as a "casual worker" on daily wage basis, but
not as a "casual sweeper", his name was not
recommended for regularization. It is submitted that
on settlement being reached between the Indian
Banks‟ Association and the Workmen‟s Union it was
decided that the Part Time employees-Members of the
supporting staff on consolidated wages having normal
working hours were treated as Part Time Sweepers on
1/3rd scale wages. Expanding his argument, he would
further rely on paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit to
contend that "with an objective to improve the
financial strata of the existing Part-Time Sweepers on
scale wages and to address the need of Peons in the
Branches, the Management of the Opposite Parties-
Bank held negotiations with the All India UCO Bank
Employees‟ Federation, the Majority Organization for
Workmen in the Bank under the provisions of I.R.
Policy for workmen staff and detailed discussions took
place on different aspects of the issue and a
Memorandum of Settlement was reached between the
Management of the opposite parties-Bank and the All
India UCO Bank Employees‟ Federation (Majority
Organization for Workmen) on 06.07.2015 in the
matter of conversion of Part-Time Sweepers/Full-Time
Sweepers as Full-Time Housekeeper-cum-Peon".
Subsequently, the proposal was placed by Human
Resource Management Department, Head Office of the
opposite parties-Bank before the Board of Directors of
the Opposite Parties-Bank and the Board accorded its
approval to the proposal for conversion of all part-time
sweepers/Full-time sweepers as Full-time
Housekeeper-cum-Peons.
5.1. Sri Sunil Kumar Swain, learned counsel appearing for
the opposite parties-Bank canvassed before this Court
that the Bank has been converting all part-time
sweepers to Housekeeper-cum-Peons subject to certain
criteria. Copy of Bank‟s Circular No.CHO/PAS/08/
2015-16, dated 01.09.2015 (Annexure-1), clearly
demonstrates inter-alia the detailed guidelines for
conversion of Part Time Sweepers who were on the
permanent rolls of the Bank. In tune with the
Settlement between Bank and Employees‟ Federation
on 06.07.2015, as per said Circular dated 01.09.2015,
all the existing Full Time/Part Time Sweepers (PTS:
1/3, 1/2, 3/4) who were on the permanent rolls of the
Bank as of 31.08.2015 and subject to fulfilment of
other criteria/terms and conditions as laid down
therein were eligible to be converted as Full Time
Housekeeper-cum-Peons with effect from 01.09.2015.
Accordingly, they were converted as Full Time
Housekeeper-cum-Peons. Since the petitioner is
engaged as a casual worker on daily wages basis, he
does not come within the ken of the said Circular and
hence, he is not found eligible to be appointed as Full
Time Housekeeper-cum-Peon.
5.2. He, therefore, fervently prays for dismissal of the writ
petition.
Analysis and discussions:
6. There is no dispute that the petitioner has been
working in UCO Bank, Bidyut Marg Branch,
Bhubaneswar with effect from 10.01.2011, though no
denial that the petitioner did work in CRP
Headquarters Branch of UCO Bank in Bhubaneswar
since 18.07.2005, but for objection by the opposite
parties that he left the work to join at Bidyut Marg
Branch. Thus, as Sweeper he worked for more than
twenty years, though no objection has been raised
with respect to the fact that in addition to such duty
his service has been utilised as if subordinate staff,
i.e., Peon in the Branch. Be that be, the fact remains
that the petitioner has been working in the Bidyut
Marg Branch of UCO Bank in Bhubaneswar since
10.01.2011 till date uninterruptedly.
6.1. At the outset it may be relevant to have regard to the
view expressed by the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in
the case of N. Karunanidhi Vrs. Union of India, W.P.
No.12887 of 2016 and batch, vide Judgment
22.04.2022 wherein the following observations are
made with respect to exploitation of service of persons
awaiting regularisation in service:
"17. Be that as it may, as far as the issuance of Writ of
Mandamus towards regularisation of petitioners'
services, this Court‟s power to issue such
command in the face of the fact that the petitioners
have been engaged as project workers, is not
legally available. But at the same time, these
petitioners who have been engaged for a public
purpose for years together cannot be left in the
cold and be told that being project employees, no
law in the country would support your cause.
Such a stand if it were to be taken in the facts and
circumstances of the case, it is opposed to the
concept of welfare State. A State cannot employ
scores of persons for years together on an
exploitative terms of engagement and be allowed
to simply take refuge behind the contention that
the petitioners are project employees simplicitor
and have therefore no rights whatsoever.
18. If the Courts cannot give direction for their
regularisation of service, in the constrained legal
scenario what other remedies that are available to
these unfortunate employees, who have been
engaged in service for public purpose, without
having any definite future to hold on? These
petitioners cannot be kept on the tenterhooks of
their employment for years together, by brushing
aside and discarding their concerned yearning for
a definite future, with unresponsive indifference.
19. A welfare State grounded on constitutional values,
cannot come up with apathetic and callous stand
that despite continued employment of these
petitioners for years together, no semblance of
right is available to them. Such stand by the State
is opposed to constitutional values as enshrined in
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Courts
of course have held that equal opportunity must be
provided in public employment and entry through
back door should be discountenanced. When
Article 21 being violated by the State action
towards its servants, the consideration of the
Government must primarily be focussed on
alleviating legitimate grievances of its employees.
Even assuming that the recruitment of these writ
petitioners had not been fully in consonance with
the procedure for appointment in Government
services, the fact remained that these persons
have been consciously appointed by the
Government for implementing public projects and
the work has been extracted from them
continuously for several years. It is therefore, not
open to the Government after a period of time to
turn around and contend that these writ
petitioners have no right at all to seek any kind of
guarantee for their future.
20. In the opinion of this Court, continued employment
for several years, even on a projects meant to
serve the State as a whole, certain rights would
definitely accrue to them, atleast to the extent of
making a claim for formulation of a scheme
towards their absorption. This Court is quite
conscious of the fact that the Government has
been benevolent and had come up with several
schemes in the past and directed regularisation of
services of thousands of employees over a period
of time. Such benevolence ought to permeate to the
lowest levels to take within its sweep the
desperate cry of the petitioners as well. As in the
sublime words of the father of nation, Mahatma
Gandhi, „A nation‟s greatness is measured by how
it treats its weakest members‟. Merely because
these writ petitioners have been employed in the
projects, the policy makers may not shut their
mind and close their eyes to their precarious plight
having to serve public purpose but left in the lurch
and unprotected, at the end of the day.
21. The State Government which is now responsible
for their engagement ought to consider the pitiable
state of employment of these employees, hanging
precariously by a thread and initiate all necessary
and earnest steps towards addressing their
grievance. The Government as a reflection of its
commiserate understanding ought to first remove
its fixated and unconscionable stand that the
petitioners are project employees and therefore
their grievance is not even worth consideration.
Such pachydermatous stand is opposed to equity ,
good conscience and justice.
22. The Government cannot shut the doors of hope to
the petitioners and still would expect them to work
effectively in implementation of the projects,
serving public purpose. It is a constitutional
imperative and also a moral obligation too on the
part of the Government to come up with some kind
of a comprehensive scheme to address the claim of
these employees for regularisation. The
Government may graciously consider, taking into
account the long period of employment and
requirement of their experienced service for
serving the larger interest of public in the State."
6.2. A Division Bench of this Court in Orissa Water Supply
and Sewerage Board Vrs. Bijay Kumar Samal and
others, W.A. No.857 of 2024 and batch, disposed of
vide judgment dated 30.07.2025, held as follows:
"6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties and having perused the appeal papers and
having adverted to relevance of the rulings cited at
the Bar, we decline indulgence in the matter for
the following reasons.
6.1. Appellant-Board is constituted under the
provisions of the Orissa Water Supply & Sewerage
Board Act, 1991; the Board discharges public
functions with service rendered by Respondent-
employees since a quarter century or so, is not in
dispute. It is obvious that the work in question is
perennial in nature and that these poor employees
have been accomplishing the same with no
complaint whatsoever. It is also not in dispute that
the Board, being the employer in terms of Section
9 of the Act, has engaged the services of these
respondents, there being no regular recruits,
despite its recommendation to the State
Government on several occasions. This being the
position, the Appellant-Board, being an
instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the
Constitution of India, has to conduct itself as a
Model Employer, vide Bhupendra Nath Hazarika
Vrs. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234. It hardly
needs to be stated that there is Preambular
Socialistic Pattern prescribed by the Constitution
itself and therefore such an instrumentality cannot
take up a stand that runs contrary to the same,
apart from being bereft of elements of justice &
fair play. After all, a Statutory Body like the
Appellant-Board cannot run its ordained functions
as East India Company of bygone era.
6.2. The vehement submission of learned panel
counsel appearing for the Board that the very
initial entry of the respondents to the service is
illegal and therefore no regularization/absorption
would have been granted in terms of Umadevi
(supra) cannot be acceded to and reasons for this
are many:
Firstly, Section 9(1) of the Act says:
„The Board may appoint such officers
and employees as it considers
necessary for the efficient performance
of its duties and discharge of its
functions against posts sanctioned by
the State Government.‟
Secondly, it is specifically admitted in the
statement of objections filed in the writ
petitions that the Board has engaged
the services of these respondents.
It is not the contra case of the Board and it cannot
be either, the battle lines having been drawn up
both the sides having filed their pleadings. It need
not be stated that an admission in the pleadings is
a substantive piece of evidence, if not a sacrosanct
one. Therefore, the ratio in State of Karnataka Vrs.
Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 would not come to the
aid of Appellant-Board, initial entry being
absolutely legal.
6.3. Illegality is one thing and irregularity is another,
even if arguably they are not polls asunder. At
times, the difference between these two, sages of
law like Fedric Pollock say, more often than not, is
in degrees & not in kind. In a constitutionally
ordained Welfare State its instrumentality like the
Board cannot be permitted to contend that
although it made the appointments in question, the
same are marred by illegality, especially when
they are not, for the reasons already discussed
above. Here are employees who have been
shading their sweat, if not blood, to the soil in the
discharge of their functions for more than twenty
five years.
Firstly, a perpetrator of illegality, if at all these
appointments are of the kind, cannot be
permitted to take the advantage of its
own illegal act.
Secondly, whatever arguable illegality at the
entry level of employment would
diminish year by year and become nil
at least after a quarter century, as a
concession to the shortness of human
life.
One cannot dig the grave profitably, the dead
having gone with the winds long ago once for all.
Therefore, the entry of these respondents is at the
most can be termed as irregular and therefore
Umadevi cannot be chanted like mantra to defeat
their legitimate expectation, if not right.
6.4. The next submission of panel counsel appearing
for the Board that it is the prerogative of State
Government under Section 9 to create & sanction
posts is only a half legal truth. The text of said
provision, which is already reproduced above,
prescribes only a sanction for the posts that needs
to be created by the Board itself. If the legislature
intended the view of Board, it would have possibly
employed the expression "posts created and
sanctioned by the Government" or "posts
sanctioned and created by the Government".
However, that is not the nature of language here.
Ordinarily, sanctioning follows the creation of
posts in service jurisprudence. Added, power to
appoint would necessarily include all ancillary
powers, such as creating of posts to facilitate
appointment. No rule or ruling is brought to our
notice to sustain a view in variance. We note that
the Appellant-Board is not a Department of the
Government, which works as its limb but is a
statutory entity having a fair degree of autonomy.
This aspect has to enter the construing of Section
9(1) of the Act to make it meaningful, if not
functional. We fail to understand, why the Board
failed to create posts without abdicating that
power and thereafter to seek sanction of the
Government. However, it is strange that the
converse is practised.
6.5. The vehement submission of learned panel
counsel for the Board that it is invariably the
prerogative of Government to create posts and
Court cannot interfere in any circumstance vide
UOI Vrs. Ilmo Devi, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 899,
again is difficult to completely agree with and
reasons of this are not far to seek: Firstly, as
already mentioned above, ordinarily power to
appoint includes, power to create posts, unless the
statute otherwise says; that otherwise is missing
here. Apparently, State is not the appointing
authority, although it has power to sanction the
posts. It remains a riddle wrapped in enigma as to
why the Board abdicated its power of creating
posts in favour of the Government contrary to the
policy enacted in Section 9(1) of the Act. It is not
that there is no circumstance warranting creation
of posts, when Board itself had asked for such
creation and sanction at the hands of Government,
more particularly when the engaged personnel
have been working since last a quarter century or
so. Power to create posts, as already mentioned
above, lies with the Board and it is coupled with a
duty as well, inasmuch as the legislature has
employed the word „power' in this provision and
not the word „discretion'. Board cannot say such
power is its prerogative and a Constitutional Court
cannot regulate it. There is nothing like absolute
power or prerogative, "limited Government" being
one of the basic features of our Constitution. A
contra argument counters the rule of law.
6.6. Very importantly, it is not the State Government,
which is in appeal before us against the direction
purportedly for the creation and sanctioning of
posts. Government happens to be one of the
parties to the writ petition and it is not making out
any grievance against the said direction, which
accords with the multiple recommendations made
by the Board several times hitherto fore. In fact,
Board cannot be considered as an aggrieved party
in order to call upon us to undertake a deeper
examination of the contention as to the prerogative
of the State Government to create and sanction
posts for accommodating the poor employees, who
have been relentlessly working, we repeat, for
more than a quarter century with no complaints
whatsoever. Courts have to individualize justice in
the pleaded facts and circumstances. They cannot
turn a worthy cause away by mindlessly invoking
broad propositions canvassed at the Bar. We
hasten to add that ordinarily Writ Courts do not
interfere in matters of prerogatives of the
Government; however, when it comes to lesser
bodies, like the statutory Board in question,
exceptions are recognized to the norm; the case in
appeals at hand is one such exception.
6.7. We notice that the Appellant-Board in the subject
Resolutions dated 23.12.2013, 03.01.2014, etc.
has specifically stated the circumstances
warranting creation and sanctioning of posts
explicit recommending to regularize the services of
all employees of the kind. It is admitted by the
learned panel counsel before us that quite a few
employees having secured orders of regularization
in WP(C) Nos.3921, 3922, 3924 of 2006, WP(C) No.
10046 of 2008 and WP(C) No. 3395 of 2020, the
Board had laid challenge in Writ Appeals that
came to be negatived and further that even the
SLPs filed before the Apex Court met the same
fate. If one set of employees are granted
regularization, another set similarly circumstanced
cannot be unfavorably discriminated vide Apex
Court decision in Raman Kumar and Ors. Vrs.
UOI, 2023 LiveLaw SC 520. This decision
specifically refers to Umadevi (supra). Again we
need not say that an Article 12 entity cannot
practise "pick and choose", when it comes to
employing the work force. What applies to goose,
applies to gander, subject to all just exceptions
into which argued case of the appellants does not
fit.
6.8. Learned advocates appearing for the employees
are justified in reminding us that law like a living
river flows and streams do emerge. Post Umadevi,
that has happened in the matter of regularization/
absorption of services. In its recent decision in
Civil Appeal Nos. 8157, 8158-8179 of 2024
between Shripal Vrs. Nagar Nigam, Gajiabad
decided on 31.01.2025 vide MANU/SC/0139/
2025 = 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, the Apex Court
has observed at Para-17 as under:
„In light of these considerations, the Employer‟s
discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands
in violation of the most basic labour law principles.
Once it is established that their services were
terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and
6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and
that they were engaged in essential, perennial
duties, these workers cannot be relegated to
perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal
budget and compliance with recruitment Rules
merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve
the Employer of statutory obligations or negate
equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic
limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of
workmen who have served continuously in de
facto regular roles for an extended period.‟
We appreciate the fairness of learned panel
counsel appearing for the Appellant-Board rightly
in not taking up contentions that these employees
did not have requisite qualification, that their
performance was unsatisfactory or that their
services are no longer required for the functioning
of the Board. He was also fair in laying bare the
vacancy position of 32 ministerial posts with
various designations, although some of them not
availing to Respondent-employees, by producing
the chart prepared by Administrative Officer of the
Board on 20.03.2024. Chart also specifically
mentions name of one employee Mr. A.K. Panda,
who secured order of regularization in WP(C) No.
10046 of 2008. Learned panel counsel does not
dispute assertion of learned advocates appearing
for the Respondents that this matter ultimately
went up to the Apex Court and was laid to rest,
the subject SLP having been dismissed.
6.9. In Jaggo, 2024 INSC 1034 the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court having surveyed the law relating to
regularization from Umadevi to Vinod Kumar Vrs.
UOI, (2024) 1 SCR 1230 has observed at Para-20
as under:
„20. It is well established that the decision in
Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize
employees who have rendered long years of
service fulfilling ongoing and necessary
functions of the State or its instrumentalities.
The said judgment sought to prevent
backdoor entries and illegal appointments
that circumvent constitutional requirements.
However, where appointments were not
illegal but possibly "irregular," and where
employees had served continuously against
the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a
considerable period, the need for a fair and
humane resolution becomes paramount.
Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished
service performing tasks inherently required
on a regular basis can, over the time,
transform what was initially ad-hoc or
temporary into a scenario demanding fair
regularization. ***‟
This decision has discussed most of the rulings
cited both by the Appellants' counsel and learned
advocates appearing for the employees. Therefore,
we have not re-ventured the survey, so that this
judgment does not become a thesis. More is not
necessary to deliberate.
In the above circumstances, these appeals being
devoid of merits are liable to be and accordingly
dismissed, costs having been reluctantly made
easy.
The Appellant-Board and Official Respondents are
directed to implement the impugned orders of the
learned Single Judges and report compliance to
the Registrar General of this Court within an outer
limit of three months. Default or delay shall be
viewed very seriously in the next legal battle, if
waged by the Respondent-employees."
7. With the aforesaid prelude, this Court ventures to
examine the issue raised by the petitioner that in the
conspectus of accepted factual scenario that the
petitioner has been working with the Bank at Bidyut
Marg Branch of Bhubaneswar since 10.01.2011
without intervention or interdiction of any court by
way of interlocutory orders, by now has completed
more than ten years. It emanates from the policy of the
UCO Bank reflected in Letter dated 13.06.2009
(Annexure-A/1 enclosed with counter affidavit) that
the Bank was considering regularisation of service of
casual sweeper. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is
required to be considered in the light of decisions of
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India that long years of
service can be considered for regularisation in service.
7.1. This Court through Division Bench in the case of
Bansidhar Naik and others Vrs. Union of India and
others, 126 (2018) CLT 695, spelt out that:
"9. It is well settled law laid down by the apex Court
that the casual workers having temporary status
continuing for two to three years, the presumption
can be taken that there is a regular need of their
services and they should have been absorbed
against Group-D posts."
7.2. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Dharam Singh
and others Vrs. State of U.P. and another, (2025) 8 SCR
1026, considering requirement of engagement of
employees perennially made the following
observations:
"9. Moreover, it is undisputed that the nature of work
performed by the appellants, i.e. sorting and
scrutiny of applications, dispatch and office
support, and driving, has been continuous and
integral to the Commission‟s functioning since
their engagement between 1989 and 1992. The
Commission itself moved for sanction of fourteen
posts and furnished a list of fourteen daily wagers
including the appellants. That consistent internal
demand, coupled with uninterrupted utilisation of
the appellants‟ labour on regular office hours,
fortifies the conclusion that the duties are
perennial. To continue extracting such work for
decades while pleading want of sanctioned
strength is a position that cannot be sustained.
10. It must be noted that the premise of "no vacancy"
is, in any event, contradicted by the evidence on
record. An RTI response of 22.01.2010 received
from the office of Respondent No.2 indicated
existence of Class-IV vacancies. Furthermore, I.A.
No. 109487 of 2020 filed before this Court by the
appellants specifically pointed to at least five
vacant Class-IV/Guard posts and one vacant
Driver post within the establishment. That
application also set out the names of similarly
situated daily wagers who were regularised
earlier within the same Commission. No rebuttal
was filed to the I.A. The unrebutted assertion of
vacancies and the comparison with those who
received regularisation materially undermine the
High Court‟s conclusion that no vacancy existed
and reveal unequal treatment vis-à-vis persons
similarly placed. Selective regularisation in the
same establishment, while continuing the
appellants on daily wages despite comparable
tenure and duties with those regularized, is a
clear violation of equity.
11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance
placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to
non-suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike
Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an
invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of
public employment. It is a challenge to the State‟s
arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the
employer‟s own acknowledgement of need and
decades of continuous reliance on the very
workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra)
draws a distinction between illegal appointments
and irregular engagements and does not endorse
the perpetuation of precarious employment where
the work itself is permanent and the State has
failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent
decisions of this Court in Jaggo Vrs. Union of
India, (2024) 12 SCR 1235 and in Shripal &
Another Vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, (2025) 1
SCR 1427 have emphatically cautioned that
Umadevi, (2006) 3 SCR 953 cannot be deployed
as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term
"ad hocism", the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or
the denial of basic parity where identical duties
are exacted over extended periods. The principles
articulated therein apply with full force to the
present case. The relevant paras from Shripal
(supra) have been reproduced hereunder:
„14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on
Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage
or temporary employees cannot claim
permanent absorption in the absence of
statutory rules providing such absorption.
However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi
itself distinguishes between appointments
that are "illegal" and those that are
"irregular," the latter being eligible for
regularization if they meet certain conditions.
More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as
a shield to justify exploitative engagements
persisting for years without the Employer
undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the
record which shows no true contractor-based
arrangement and a consistent need for
permanent horticultural staff the alleged
asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though
real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage
status or continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen
continuously rendered their services over
several years, sometimes spanning more
than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls
were not produced in full, the Employer‟s
failure to furnish such records-despite
directions to do so-allows an adverse
inference under well-established labour
jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly
disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual
engagements in circumstances where the
work is permanent in nature. Morally and
legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal
requirements year after year cannot be
dismissed summarily as dispensable,
particularly in the absence of a genuine
contractor agreement. At this juncture, it
would be appropriate to recall the broader
critique of indefinite "temporary" employment
practices as done by a recent judgment of
this court in Jaggo Vrs. Union of India, (2024)
12 SCR 1235 in the following paragraphs:
„22. The pervasive misuse of temporary
employment contracts, as exemplified in
this case, reflects a broader systemic
issue that adversely affects workers‟
rights and job security. In the private
sector, the rise of the gig economy has
led to an increase in precarious
employment arrangements, often
characterized by lack of benefits, job
security, and fair treatment. Such
practices have been criticized for
exploiting workers and undermining
labour standards. Government
institutions, entrusted with upholding
the principles of fairness and justice,
bear an even greater responsibility to
avoid such exploitative employment
practices. When public sector entities
engage in misuse of temporary
contracts, it not only mirrors the
detrimental trends observed in the gig
economy but also sets a concerning
precedent that can erode public trust in
governmental operations. ***
25. It is a disconcerting reality that
temporary employees, particularly in
government institutions, often face
multifaceted forms of exploitation. While
the foundational purpose of temporary
contracts may have been to address
short-term or seasonal needs, they
have increasingly become a mechanism
to evade long-term obligations owed to
employees. These practices manifest in
several ways:
Misuse of "Temporary" Labels:
Employees engaged for work that is
essential, recurring, and integral to the
functioning of an institution are often
labelled as "temporary" or
"contractual," even when their roles
mirror those of regular employees. Such
misclassification deprives workers of
the dignity, security, and benefits that
regular employees are entitled to,
despite performing identical tasks.
Arbitrary Termination: Temporary
employees are frequently dismissed
without cause or notice, as seen in the
present case. This practice undermines
the principles of natural justice and
subjects workers to a state of constant
insecurity, regardless of the quality or
duration of their service.
Lack of Career Progression: Temporary
employees often find themselves
excluded from opportunities for skill
development, promotions, or
incremental pay raises. They remain
stagnant in their roles, creating a
systemic disparity between them and
their regular counterparts, despite their
contributions being equally significant.
Using Outsourcing as a Shield:
Institutions increasingly resort to
outsourcing roles performed by
temporary employees, effectively
replacing one set of exploited workers
with another. This practice not only
perpetuates exploitation but also
demonstrates a deliberate effort to
bypass the obligation to offer regular
employment.
Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:
Temporary employees are often denied
fundamental benefits such as pension,
provident fund, health insurance, and
paid leave, even when their tenure
spans decades. This lack of social
security subjects them and their
families to undue hardship, especially
in cases of illness, retirement, or
unforeseen circumstances.‟ ***‟
13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (supra) and
Shripal (supra), outsourcing cannot become a
convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness
and to sidestep fair engagement practices where
the work is inherently perennial. The
Commission‟s further contention that the
appellants are not "full-time" employees but
continue only by virtue of interim orders also does
not advance their case. That interim protection
was granted precisely because of the long history
of engagement and the pendency of the challenge
to the State‟s refusals. It neither creates rights
that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may
arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of
those refusals.
14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also
declined relief on the footing that the petitioners
had not specifically assailed the subsequent
decision dated 25.11.2003. However, that view
overlooks that the writ petition squarely
challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High
Court itself directed a fresh decision during
pendency, and the later rejection was placed on
record by the respondents. In such circumstances,
we believe that the High Court was obliged to
examine the legality of the State‟s stance in
refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon
reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of the
matter on a mere technicality. The Division Bench
of the High Court compounded the error by
affirming the dismissal without engaging with the
principal challenge or the intervening material. The
approach of both the Courts, in reducing the
dispute to a mechanical enquiry about "rules" and
"vacancy" while ignoring the core question of
arbitrariness in the State‟s refusal to sanction
posts despite perennial need and long service,
cannot be sustained.
15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations,
the impugned order of the High Court cannot be
sustained. The State‟s refusals dated 11.11.1999
and 25.11.2003, in so far as they concern the
Commission‟s proposals for sanction/creation of
Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial
ministerial/attendant work, are held
unsustainable and stand quashed.
16. The appeal must, accordingly, be allowed.
17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall
that the State (here referring to both the Union and
the State governments) is not a mere market
participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot
balance budgets on the backs of those who
perform the most basic and recurring public
functions. Where work recurs day after day and
year after year, the establishment must reflect
that reality in its sanctioned strength and
engagement practices. The long-term extraction of
regular labour under temporary labels corrodes
confidence in public administration and offends
the promise of equal protection. Financial
stringency certainly has a place in public policy,
but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness,
reason and the duty to organise work on lawful
lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-
hocism" thrives where administration is opaque.
The State Departments must keep and produce
accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and
outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain,
with evidence, why they prefer precarious
engagement over sanctioned posts where the work
is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record
should show what alternatives were considered,
why similarly placed workers were treated
differently, and how the chosen course aligns with
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Sensitivity to the human consequences of
prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a
constitutional discipline that should inform every
decision affecting those who keep public offices
running."
7.3. In Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Vrs. Brajrajnagar Coal
Mines Workers‟ Union, (2024) 3 SCR 627 the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of India unequivocally expressed
similar view as referred to above.
8. This Court is taken to certain clauses of Bipartite
Settlement by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The relevant portions are quoted hereunder [see
written note of submission of the petitioner]:
"Clause No.20.7 and Clause 20.8 under Chapter XX
and under Heading "Part Time Employees and
Temporary Employees, etc.
Clause No.20.7
„In supersession of paragraph 21.20 and sub clause (c)
of paragraph 23.15 of Desai Award, Temporary
employee will mean a workman who has been
appointed for a limited period for work which is of an
essentially temporary nature or who is employed
temporarily as an Additional workman in connection
with temporary increase in work of a permanent nature
and includes a workman other than a permanent
workman who is appointed in a temporary vacancy
caused by the absence of a particular permanent
workman.‟
Clause No.20.8
„A temporary workman may also be appointed to fill a
permanent vacancy provided that such temporary
appointment shall not exceed a period of 3 months
during which the Bank shall make arrangements for
filling up the vacancy permanently. If such a temporary
workman is eventually selected for filling up the
vacancy, the period of such temporary employment will
be taken into account as part of his probationary
period.‟ ***"
8.1. Attention is also drawn to the Circular dated
13.06.2009 issued by the General Manager, UCO
Bank, Personnel Services Department, Head Office,
3&4, DD Block, Sector-1, Salt Lake, Kolkata, wherein
the following is found mentioned:
"Subject to your verification of the Annexure I, as stated
above, the Casual Sweepers who are working on daily
wages and named in Annexure-I will be eligible for
regularization as Consolidated Wage Sweepers subject
to fulfilment of following terms and conditions:
i) The Casual Sweeper who would be regularized as
Consolidated Wage sweeper should have worked
as Casual Sweeper on daily wages in the
respective Branch/Office form the date
immediately after the permanent vacancy in
sweepers post fallen vacant and still continuing as
Casual Sweeper in the said branch;
ii) No other permanent Sweeper should have been
posted in the respective branch/office unless the
floor area of the said branch/office requires
engagement of more than one Sweeper.
iii) In a particular branch/office, under any
circumstances, not more than one Casual Sweeper
will be regularized as Consolidated Wage
Sweeper.
iv) The Casual Sweeper who will be regularized as
Consolidated Wage Sweeper should also satisfy
the following eligibility criteria:
(a) Age limit: Minimum 18 years and Maximum
below 60 years as of 13th June, 2009. Those
who have already crossed 60 years of age
limit, will not be considered for regularization
and will be discontinued.
(b) Educational qualification should not be more
than VI (Sixth) Standard. However,
educational qualification above VI standard
will not be a bar, but no benefit whatsoever
will be given for such higher qualification in
future.
The Zonal Office to verify the particulars in each
case and ensure that the Casual Sweepers who
are to be regularized as Consolidated Wage
Sweeper fulfil the criteria as stated under point
Nos.(i) to (iv) above.
2) Those who will fulfil the eligibility criteria should
be asked by the Zonal Office to submit application
in the proforma given in Annexure-II to the
respective Branch/Office and such application
should be forwarded by the respective Branch/
Office to Zonal Office concerned with their
recommendation. Upon receipt of such
applications, the zonal Office will scrutinize the
application and subject to fulfilment of the
eligibility criteria will forward a statement giving
full particulars of such candidates to Head Office,
Personnel Services Department with their
recommendation for final approval.
After receipt of final clearance from Head Office,
the Zonal Office will issue Appointment Letter to
the eligible Casual Sweepers who will be
regularized as Consolidated Wage Sweeper. A
proforma of the appointment letter is given in
Annexure-III.
While issuing appointment letter to the eligible
Casual Sweeper as Consolidated Wage Sweeper,
as stated above, the Zonal Office will follow
Government guidelines on Reservation of Posts for
SC/ST/OBC etc. ***"
8.2. Circular No.F.N.8/4/2025-RRB, dated 29.09.2025
issued by the Government of India, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Financial Services indicates
with respect to regularisation of Part Time Sweepers/
Casual Workers as Full Time Employees in RRBs as
follows:
"I am directed to refer to the subject cited above and to
say that the High Court of Calcutta vide order dated
09.01.2025 in WPA No.1073 of 2024 has passed the
following orders:
„After hearing the parties and considering the
affidavits filed, this court is of the view that the
issue of regularization and/or absorption of the
petitioners should be regulated to the Secretary,
Department of Financial Services, Ministry of
Finance, Government of India, 6A, 3rd Floor,
Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-
110001 who has been added as party respondent
No.7 shall either through himself / herself or by
forming a committee of at least three members
having expertise in the field to decide on the issue
of regularization and/or absorption of the writ
petitioners. The respondent no.7 or the committee
that may be constituted by respondent no.7 may
also formulate a scheme for regularization and/or
absorption of the writ petitioners if they find that
the petitioners are to be regularized or absorbed
which may aid other similarly circumstanced
persons in the said bank as it is well-settled in
view of the judgment reported in (2015) 1 SCC
347, State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vrs. Arvind
Kuumar Srivastva & Ors. that similar
circumstances employees should be given the
same benefits give to other group pursuant to
orders of court to avoid multiplicity of judicial
proceedings. The entire exercise of deciding the
issue as to the regularizations and/or absorption
of the writ petitioners are found suitable for being
regularized and/or absorbed, shall be completed
with a period of one years from the date of
communication of a server copy of this order".
2. A copy of the order dated 09.01.2025 in WPA
No.1073 of 2024 in High Court of Calcutta is
enclosed (Annexure I).
3. To comply with the above direction of the Hon‟ble
Court, it has been decided to refer the matter to
the Standing Consultative Committee (SCC) for
RRBs constituted vide DFS letter no.7/6/2025-
RRB dated 18.09.2025.
4. A brief indicating multiple judicial pronouncements
on the subject matter is enclosed as (Annexure II)
for reference.
5. The SCC for this purpose may co-opt the Chairmen
of the concerned RRBs where litigations on the
subject are either sub-judice or decided.
6. The SCC may examine the issues along with
relevant records, in light of the applicable rules/
regulations/manpower policy in the RRBs & PSBs
and give clear recommendations in the subject
matter within three weeks of receipt of this letter,
in compliance of the Hon‟ble High Court of
Calcutta order dated 09.01.2025 in WPA 1073 of
2024."
8.3. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the
Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department
of Financial Services issued further Circular bearing
F.No.8/4/2025-RRB dated 28.11.2025 with regard to
"Regularization of Part Time Sweepers/ Casual
Workers as Full Time Employees in RRBs, in
compliance with judicial directions, which runs thus:
"I am directed to refer to the subject cited above
and to say that across the country, cases have
been filed in various courts seeking regularisation
of Temporary/Ad hoc/Part-time sweepers. Some
cases have been decided in favour of the
applicants/petitioners. In some court, the matters
are still pending. Hon‟ble High Court of Calcutta,
vide its order dated 09.01.2025 in WPA No.1073
of 2024, has passed the following orders:
„After hearing the parties and considering the
affidavits filed, this court is of the view that the
issue of regularization and/or absorption of the
petitioners should be regulated to the Secretary,
Department of Financial Services, Ministry of
Finance, Government of India, 6A, 3rd Floor,
Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-
110001 who has been added as party respondent
No.7 shall either through himself/herself or by
forming a committee of at least three members
having expertise in the field to decide on the issue
of regularization and/or absorption of the writ
petitioners. The respondent no.7 or the committee
that may be constituted by respondent no.7 may
also formulate a scheme for regularization and/or
absorption of the writ petitioners if they find that
the petitioners are to be regularized or absorbed
which may aid other similarly circumstanced
persons in the said bank as it is well-settled in
view of the judgment reported in (2015) 1 SCC
347, State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vrs. Arvind
Kumar Srivastva & Ors. that similar
circumstances employees should be given the
same benefits give to other group pursuant to
orders of court to avoid multiplicity of judicial
proceedings. The entire exercise of deciding the
issue as to the regularizations and/or absorption
of the writ petitioners are found suitable for being
regularized and/or absorbed, shall be completed
with a period of one years from the date of
communication of a server copy of this order.‟
2. Department of Financial Services (DFS), vide its
letter no.7/6/2025-RRB dated 18.09.2025, has
constituted a Standing Consultative Committee
(SCC) for RRBs for examination of issues referred
to it by the Government (DFS)/NABARD with prior
consultation with DFS from time to time, amongst
others, on Service conditions of RRB employees.
3. In compliance to above said orders of Hon‟ble High
Court of Calcutta dated 09.01.2025 passed in
W.P.A. 1073 of 2024, Department of Financial
Services (DFS), vide its letter No.F.No.8/4/2025-
RRB dated 29.09.2025 referred the issue of
regularization of Part Time Sweepers (PTS) /
Casual Workers in RRBs to the Standing
Consultative Committee (SCC) for RRBs to examine
the issues along with the relevant records, in light
of the applicable rules / regulations / manpower
policy in the RRBs & PSBs and give clear
recommendations in the subject matter.
4. In view of the submissions made above, the Govt.
of India shall take appropriate decision in the
matter after due scrutiny and evaluation of the
recommendations of the said consultative
committee.
5. Therefore, in the context of ongoing legal
proceedings on the captioned subject in which you
are one of the respondents, it is advised to keep
the Hon‟ble Court informed of the above
developments and seek adjournment of matter for
6 months."
8.4. When the above Circulars of the year 2025 are taken
into consideration, this Court finds no substance in
the argument of the learned counsel representing the
opposite parties-Bank that "the petitioner is engaged
as a Casual Worker, but not as a Casual Sweeper and
as such he does not satisfy the criteria for conversion/
regularisation as Full Time Housekeeper-cum-Peon
(paragraph 9 of written submission of the opposite
parties). In view of the aforesaid, there is no ambiguity
that Part-Time Sweepers/Casual Workers can be
considered for absorption in service when their
services are perennially required and have been
exploited by assigning duty not only of a sweeper but
also of a peon in absence of or inadequate supporting
staff. In the instant case, the petitioner has been
working since more than twenty years if his
engagement is considered since the year 2005 or ten
years if engagement is considered when he joined and
has been working at Bidyut Marg Branch of UCO
Bank since 2011. The opposite parties have not denied
in specific terms that the petitioner has been working
in the CRP Headquarters, Bhubaneswar since
18.07.2005. Only dispute which the opposites parties
sought to raise is this, that the petitioner having left
the job thereat, joined at Bidyut Marg Branch of UCO
Bank. Thus, in such view of the matter, the service of
the petitioner has been utilised on exploitative terms
by the UCO Bank since 2005, may be in different
capacity. Nothing is sought to agitate by the opposite
parties that he could not perform the duty of the
Housekeeper-cum-Peon efficiently or effectively when
he was entrusted to do so. If the services rendered to
the UCO Bank by the petitioner is considered since
2005, it would more than twenty years.
8.5. With the above legal position through very many
decisions of various Courts, taking into account the
anxious consideration depicted through decisions of
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India and other High
Court(s) including this Court when the present matter
is glossed through, this Court cannot desist itself but
by applying the principles so enunciated observes that
the petitioner is entitled to be considered for
regularization/absorption in service in the light of
discussions made hitherto.
8.6. At this juncture this Court feels it apposite to have
reference to the view expressed by the Hon‟ble Apex
Court in the case of Bhola Nath Vrs. The State of
Jharkhand and others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129,
wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India has been
pleased to enunciate as follows:
"ISSUE II.
Whether the action/inaction of the respondent-State in
not recognizing the appellants‟ continuous service for
the purpose of regularization is arbitrary and violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India ?
10. The learned Single Judge, vide common order,
dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants
seeking a writ of mandamus directing the
respondent-State to regularize their services. In
doing so, the writ Court placed reliance on the
terms and conditions of the employment
agreement entered into between the appellants
and the respondents. The learned Single Judge, in
this regard, recorded the following findings:
i) The appellants were appointed on a purely
contractual basis pursuant to a decision of
the Finance Department to fill 22 sanctioned
posts through contractual engagement, the
expenditure being met from non-plan funds.
Following issuance of an advertisement and
completion of the selection process, the
appellants were appointed by entering into
contracts of employment for an initial period
of one year, extendable from time to time for
fixed durations.
ii) The appellants were granted extensions
periodically, with the last extensions having
been issued in the year 2023 as a one-time
measure. The respondent-State treated the
said decision as a conscious policy
determination, which, according to the
learned Single Judge, did not warrant
interference by the Court.
iii) The appellants were held not entitled to
regularization under the regularization
scheme framed by the respondent-State in
the year 2015, as modified in 2019, which
prescribed completion of ten years of
continuous service as on the cut-off year
2019. It was further noted that the
appellants had not laid any challenge to the
validity of the said regularization scheme.
iv) Since the appellants were appointed on a
contractual basis and continued only through
periodic extensions, it was held that they did
not possess any statutory or legal right to
continue in service once the contractual
period, including its extensions, came to an
end.
v) Emphasis was laid on the fact that the
appellants were fully aware, and were put to
notice on each occasion of renewal, that their
engagement was contractual and limited to a
specified tenure. In view thereof, the learned
Single Judge held that no question of
legitimate expectation or enforceable right to
renewal or regularization could arise, nor
could any right be said to have crystallised
in their favour.
vi) It was further noted that the appellants had
not been replaced by another set of
contractual employees. On the contrary, the
material on record indicated that the
respondent-State had undertaken regular
recruitment and appointed nine persons as
regular employees through a fresh
advertisement.
10.1. Aggrieved by the decision of the writ Court, the
appellants preferred intra-Court appeals before
the High Court. The learned Division Bench upheld
the judgment of the writ Court and recorded the
following findings:
i) The law relating to regularization or
absorption of contractual employees was
held to be well settled, namely that such
employees are governed by the terms and
conditions of their engagement, the
relationship being founded upon a bilateral
contract between the employee and the
employer.
ii) It was further held that the terms and
conditions of a contract cannot be altered,
nor can new conditions be introduced, by
issuance of judicial directions, as doing so
would amount to impermissible re-writing of
the contract. Once the parties have
consciously entered into contractual terms,
they cannot subsequently resile therefrom or
question those conditions.
11. At the outset, we find it necessary to express our
disapproval of the manner in which the High Court
has approached the present lis. The controversy
before the Court was not one of mere acquiescence
or implied waiver of rights. The High Court, in our
view, has proceeded on a mechanical application
of precedents without engaging with the core
constitutional issues involved, thereby reducing
the dispute to one of acceptance of contractual
terms, divorced from its larger constitutional
context.
11.1. This Court has consistently held that the State,
being a model employer, is saddled with a
heightened obligation in the discharge of its
functions. A model employer is expected to act
with high probity, fairness and candour, and
bears a social responsibility to treat its employees
in a manner that preserves their dignity. The State
cannot be permitted to exploit its employees or to
take advantage of their vulnerability, helplessness
or unequal bargaining position.
11.2. It therefore follows that the State is required to
exercise heightened caution in its role as an
employer, the constitutional mandate casting upon
it a strict obligation to act as a model employer, an
obligation from which no exception can be
countenanced.
11.3. In the present case, the appellants were appointed
by the respondent-State against sanctioned posts
of Junior Engineers (Agriculture), with the
engagement being described from the inception as
contractual in nature. The terms and conditions
governing the engagement stipulated that the
appointment would be for an initial period of one
year, extendable thereafter subject to satisfactory
performance.
11.4. The respondent-State accordingly granted
extensions to the appellants from time to time until
the year 2023, when it was expressly clarified
that the extension being granted would be the
last. It was thereafter that the appellants
approached the High Court by filing writ petitions
seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State to
regularize their services.
11.5. The consistent case of the appellants has been
that the respondent-State‟s refusal to grant
regularization is arbitrary and therefore warrants
judicial interference. Article 14 of the Constitution
casts a negative obligation upon the State to treat
all persons equally, and arbitrariness, being
antithetical to the equality principle, is proscribed
as violative of Article 14.
11.6. The Constitution Bench in Basheshar Nath Vrs.
Comm. Income Tax, (1959) Supp. 1 SCR 528 long
ago clarified that fundamental rights guaranteed
under the Constitution are incapable of waiver.
Consequently, if the action of the respondent-State
is found to be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution, the mere fact that the appellants‟
engagement was governed by contractual terms
and conditions cannot be construed as a waiver of
their fundamental rights.
***
13. Another facet requiring consideration in the case of
contractual employees, such as the present
appellants, is the doctrine of legitimate
expectation. Where employees have continued to
discharge their duties on contractual posts for a
considerable length of time, as in the present case,
it is but natural that a legitimate expectation
arises that the State would, at some stage,
recognize their long and continuous service. It is in
this belief, bolstered by repeated extensions
granted by the Executive, that such employees
continue in service and refrain from seeking
alternative employment, notwithstanding the
contractual nature of their engagement. At this
juncture, it is thus apposite to advert to the
principles governing the doctrine of legitimate
expectation as enunciated by this Court in Army
Welfare Education Society Vrs. Sunil Kumar
Sharma, (2024) 16 SCC 598 wherein it was held
as follows:
„63. A reading of the aforesaid decisions brings
forth the following features regarding the
doctrine of legitimate expectation:
63.1. First, legitimate expectation must be based
on a right as opposed to a mere hope, wish
or anticipation;
63.2. Secondly, legitimate expectation must arise
either from an express or implied promise; or
a consistent past practice or custom followed
by an authority in its dealings;
***
63.5. Fifthly, legitimate expectation operates in the
realm of public law, that is, a plea of
legitimate action can be taken only when a
public authority breaches a promise or
deviates from a consistent past practice,
without any reasonable basis.‟
64. The aforesaid features, although not
exhaustive in nature, are sufficient to help us
in deciding the applicability of the doctrine of
legitimate expectation to the facts of the case
at hand. It is clear that legitimate
expectation, jurisprudentially, was a device
created in order to maintain a check on
arbitrariness in State action. It does not
extend to and cannot govern the operation of
contracts between private parties, wherein
the doctrine of promissory estoppel holds the
field.‟
It is, therefore, not difficult to comprehend the
expectation with which such contractual
employees continue in the service of the State. The
repeated conduct of the employer-State in
expressing confidence in their performance and
consistently granting monetary upgrades & tenure
extensions reasonably nurtures an expectation
that their long and continuous service would
receive further recognition.
13.1. Another Constitution Bench in State of Karnataka
Vrs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 cautioned that the
doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot ordinarily
be extended to persons whose appointments are
temporary, casual or contractual in nature. The
relevant extract of the judgment reads as follows:
„47. When a person enters a temporary
employment or gets engagement as a
contractual or casual worker and the
engagement is not based on a proper
selection as recognised by the relevant rules
or procedure, he is aware of the
consequences of the appointment being
temporary, casual or contractual in nature.
Such a person cannot invoke the theory of
legitimate expectation for being confirmed in
the post when an appointment to the post
could be made only by following a proper
procedure for selection and in cases
concerned, in consultation with the Public
Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of
legitimate expectation cannot be successfully
advanced by temporary, contractual or
casual employees. It cannot also be held that
the State has held out any promise while
engaging these persons either to continue
them where they are or to make them
permanent. The State cannot constitutionally
make such a promise. It is also obvious that
the theory cannot be invoked to seek a
positive relief of being made permanent in
the post.‟
However, this Court in Umadevi (supra) clarified
that the bar against invocation of the doctrine of
legitimate expectation applies only to those
temporary, contractual or casual employees whose
engagement was not preceded by a proper
selection process in accordance with the extant
rules. Consequently, where such engagement is
made after following a due and lawful selection
procedure, there is no absolute bar in law
preventing such employees from invoking the
doctrine of legitimate expectation.
13.2. In the present case, the respondent-State had
engaged the services of the appellants on
sanctioned posts since the year 2012. It was only
towards the end of the year 2022 that the
respondents communicated that no further
extension of the appellants‟ engagement was
likely to be granted.
13.3. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid action is
not only vitiated by arbitrariness but is also in
clear derogation of the equality principles
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The
respondent-State initially engaged the appellants
in their youth to discharge public duties and
functions. Having rendered long and dedicated
service, the appellants cannot now be left to fend
for themselves, particularly when the employment
opportunities that may have been available to
them a decade ago are no longer accessible owing
to age constraints.
13.4. We are unable to discern any rational basis for the
respondent-State‟s decision to discontinue the
appellants after nearly ten years of continuous
service. We are conscious that the symbiotic-
relationship between the appellants and the
respondent-State was mutually beneficial, the
State derived the advantage of the appellants‟
experience and institutional familiarity, while the
appellants remained in public service. In such
circumstances, any departure from a long-
standing practice of renewal, particularly one that
frustrates the legitimate expectation of the
employees, ought to be supported by cogent
reasons recorded in a speaking order.
13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious
and reasoned one. An employee who has
satisfactorily discharged his duties over several
years and has been granted repeated extensions
cannot, overnight, be treated as surplus or
undesirable. We are unable to accept the
justification advanced by the respondents as the
obligation of the State, as a model employer,
extends to fair treatment of its employees
irrespective of whether their engagement is
contractual or regular.
13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated
the practice adopted by States of engaging
employees under the nominal labels of "part-time",
"contractual" or "temporary" in perpetuity and
thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their
positions. In Jaggo Vrs. Union of India, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3826, this Court underscored that
government-departments must lead by example in
ensuring fair and stable employment, and evolved
the test of examining whether the duties
performed by such temporary employees are
integral to the day-to-day functioning of the
organization.
13.7. In Shripal Vrs. Nagar Nigam, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
221 and Vinod Kumar Vrs. Union of India, (2024)
9 SCC 327, this Court cautioned against a
mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra)
to deny regularization to temporary employees in
the absence of statutory rules. It was held that
Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield
to legitimise exploitative engagements continued
for years without undertaking regular recruitment.
The Court further clarified that Umadevi itself
draws a distinction between appointments that
are "illegal" and those that are merely "irregular",
the latter being amenable to regularization upon
fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.
13.8. In Dharam Singh Vrs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1735, this Court strongly deprecated
the culture of " ad-hocism" adopted by States in
their capacity as employers. The Court criticised
the practice of outsourcing or informalizing
recruitment as a means to evade regular
employment obligations, observing that such
measures perpetuate precarious working
conditions while circumventing fair and lawful
engagement practices.
13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-time
employees, such as the appellants, constitute an
integral part of the edifice upon which the
machinery of the State continues to function. They
are not merely ancillary to the system, but form
essential components thereof. The equality
mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires
that their service be reciprocated in a manner free
from arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the
State affecting the careers and livelihood of such
part-time and contractual employees are guided
by fairness and reason.
13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to
persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-
State‟s contention that the mere contractual
nomenclature of the appellants‟ engagement
denudes them of constitutional protection. The
State, having availed of the appellants‟ services on
sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant to a
due process of selection and having consistently
acknowledged their satisfactory performance,
cannot, in the absence of cogent reasons or a
speaking decision, abruptly discontinue such
engagement by taking refuge behind formal
contractual clauses. Such action is manifestly
arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the
State to act as a model employer, and fails to
withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the
Constitution."
8.7. The conspectus of the aforesaid discussion leads this
Court to observe that when a person is engaged as
Casual Worker/Sweeper in an Organization
uninterruptedly for substantial number of years (long
standing engagement), he is entitled to be considered
for regularization in service. Denial of such benefit
would entail arbitrariness rendering social injustice
offending provisions of Article 14 and Article 38 of the
Constitution of India.
8.8. At this juncture, it is apposite to have regard to
following observations made in Hari Nandan Prasad
Vrs. Food Corporation of India, (2014) 7 SCC 190,
wherein applicability of the judgment of Uma Devi
(supra) has been clarified:
"34. On a harmonious reading of the two judgments
discussed in detail above, we are of the opinion
that when there are post available, in the absence
of any unfair labour practice the Labour court
would not give direction for regularization only
because a worker has continued as daily wage
worker/ad hoc/temporary worker for number of
years. Further, if there are no posts available,
such a direction for regularization would be
impermissible. In the aforesaid circumstances
giving of direction to regularise such a person, only
on the basis of number of years put in by such a
worker as daily wager, etc. may amount to back
door entry into the service which is an anathema
to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further, such a
direction would not be given when the worker
concerned does not meet the eligibility requirement
of the post in question as per the recruitment rules.
However, wherever it is found that similarly
situated workmen are regularized by the employer
itself under some scheme or otherwise and the
workmen in question who have approached the
Industrial/Labour Court are on a par with them,
direction of regularization in such cases may be
legally justified, otherwise, non-regularization of
the left over workers itself would amount to
invidious discrimination qua them in such cases
and would be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. Thus, the industrial adjudicator
would be achieving the equality by upholding
Article 14, rather than violating this constitutional
provision."
8.9. The approach of the opposite parties-UCO Bank in not
regularizing the services of the petitioner is violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the Bank has
regularized the services of juniors who were similarly
situated. Hence, the action of the Bank is
discriminatory in nature.
9. In the present case, the petitioner has been working
since 10.01.2011, if not since 18.07.2005, with the
UCO Bank, may be with different branches of same
Bank, seamlessly and uninterruptedly till date, as
found from the pleadings of the writ petition, he is
seen to have rendered service for substantial years
continuously without any break. In the light of the
view expressed through different Benches of Courts, it
can safely be said that the case of the petitioner
cannot be ignored from being considered for
regularisation/absorption in service.
9.1. In the wake of the aforesaid discussion on factual
merit of the matter and the legal perspective discussed
supra, this Court feels it expedient to hold that the
authorities of UCO Bank are not justified in not
recognizing the services rendered by the petitioner for
regularization in service. The long standing
engagement and services being exploited of him
undisputedly since 2005 (documents enclosed with
rejoinder affidavit showing payments being made to
the petitioner prior to 2011 by the Bank are furnished
for perusal of this Court), it presupposes that the
Bank is in need of service of the petitioner. Having
worked in the UCO Bank for number of years, mere
culling out subtle discrimination between "Casual
Worker‟ and „Sweeper‟, which runs contrary and
counter to Circulars F.No.8/4/2025-RRB of
Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department
of Financial Services, dated 29.09.2025 and
28.11.2025, the case of the petitioner for
regularization cannot be overlooked; and doing so
would be an action perceived as arbitrary and violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
9.2. Therefore, this Court is inclined to direct the opposite
parties-UCO Bank to consider the case of the
petitioner pragmatically in the light of the discussions
made herein above by applying the view expressed in
the decisions referred to supra.
9.3. The entire exercise of consideration of the grievance of
the petitioner for regularization/absorption in service
shall be completed within a period of three months
from today.
10. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with
the above observation and direction, and pending
Interlocutory Application(s) shall also be disposed of;
but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to
costs.
Signature Not
Verified (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY JUDGE
Designation: Personal Assistant
(Secretary-in-charge) High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Reason: Authentication The 15th April, 2026//Aswini/MRS/Laxmikant
Location: ORISSA HIGH
COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Apr-2026 18:09:04
