The Orissa High Court (Cuttack Bench) has held that long-serving daily wage employees, whose work is of a perennial nature, cannot be denied consideration for regularization by labelling their appointments as ‘illegal’, especially in light of the jurisprudence that prioritizes fair labour practices over technical objections.
The Court clarified that the State and its instrumentalities, as model employers, have a constitutional obligation to not engage in exploitative employment practices, and hence, declared the rejection of the petitioners’ claim for regularization and the Bank’s action of issuing advertisements for direct recruitment as not sustainable in the eye of law.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the order rejecting the claim for regularization, and directed the respondent-Bank to take a fresh decision on the petitioners’ claim for regularization within two months, specifically taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826]; Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad [2025 SCC OnLine SC 221]; Dharam Singh vs. State of U.P. [Civil Appeal No(s). 8558 of 2018]; and Bhola Nath vs. State of Jharkhand [2026 INSC 99]. The interim order protecting the petitioners’ services was directed to continue until such a decision is taken.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy noted the argument of the bank that the petitioners’ engagement was purely casual, intermittent, and a stop-gap arrangement, not against sanctioned posts, and without following a due recruitment process. However, since the petitioners had been continuously working since 2011, the Bench refused to accept the Bank’s stand that their engagements were illegal rather than irregular.
The Bench affirmed that an employer-employee relationship existed, as PNB had taken over the assets and liabilities of UBI. The Bench also criticized the misuse of temporary contracts, the practice of outsourcing to bypass regular employment, and the denial of basic rights to long-serving temporary employees. Hence, it concluded that contractual stipulations cannot override constitutional guarantees, and abrupt discontinuance of long-standing engagement is manifestly arbitrary.
Briefly, the petitioners were working as Part-Time Sweepers on a daily wage basis in various branches of the erstwhile United Bank of India (UBI), with their engagement starting from 2011 onwards. Following a Scheme of Amalgamation, UBI and Oriental Bank of Commerce merged with Punjab National Bank (PNB) with effect from April 1, 2020. After the merger, the All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation requested PNB’s management to absorb the temporary and ad-hoc employees of the erstwhile banks into permanent service.
Despite this request and the petitioners’ continued service, PNB issued various advertisements to fill up Group-D and subordinate posts through direct recruitment, including a process to fill 3800 subordinate posts. The petitioners initially approached the High Court, which permitted them to make a representation to the bank. The bank however rejected their claim for regularization, on the grounds that they were not recruited through a due process, and could not claim regularization outside the bank’s rules, and that such posts must be filled via Employment Exchanges or advertisements.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate B. Routray and Advocate J. Biswal, for the Petitioner
Advocate A.C. Swain, for the Respondent
