Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 2797

ORISSA HIGH COURT
Murahari Sri Raman, J
Kalinga Ray – Appellant
Versus
UCO Bank – Respondent
W.P.(C). No.13691 of 2018

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Surendra Nath Panda
For the Respondents: Sunil Kumar Swain

State instrumentalities must act as model employers and cannot use ad-hoc labels to justify perpetual exploitation of long-term daily wage workers. Denying regularization for perennial duties while similarly situated employees are absorbed is discriminatory and violates the constitutional mandate of equality and fairness in public employment.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21, and 38 - Service Law - Regularization of employment - Casual and daily wage workers - Principle of 'Model Employer' - Where an instrumentality of the state engages employees for perennial, essential duties over extended periods, the denial of regularization based on narrow administrative distinctions or contractual nomenclature constitutes arbitrary and discriminatory action - Long-term, continuous engagement creates a legitimate expectation of fair treatment, and failing to accord regularization to employees who have served for decades while absorbing others similarly situated violates the constitutional guarantee of equality. (Paras 1, 13.9, 13.10, 22)

(B) Service Law - Doctrine of legitimate expectation - Arbitrariness in public employment - Continued employment of an individual for over twenty years performing tasks integral to the organization’s functioning creates a substantive claim for regularization - The burden lies on the employer to act with fairness and transparency, and reliance on technical labels to justify the denial of job security for workers fulfilling necessary functions is impermissible. (Paras 13, 13.1, 13.10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a daily wage worker performing cleaning and office support duties, sought regularization of service after more than twenty years of continuous employment. The employer refused to grant regularization, arguing that the petitioner was engaged as a casual worker rather than a specific category of sweeper designated under organizational policy, thereby failing to meet the eligibility criteria for absorption into the workforce.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the institution’s practice of engaging the petitioner for over two decades on an informal basis while extracting essential, perennial services was exploitative. It held that the administrative distinction between 'casual worker' and 'sweeper' was a pretext for denying benefits and constituted invidious discrimination contrary to internal equity and constitutional mandates.

Issues: Whether the employer can deny regularization to a long-term daily wage employee based on narrow administrative classifications, and whether such denial violates the constitutional right to equality when similarly positioned individuals have been regularized.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that state instrumentalities must adhere to the role of a 'model employer,' prohibiting the perpetuation of ad-hocism to evade statutory and constitutional obligations. When duties are proven to be perennial and long-standing, preventing back-door entry by regularizing only selected employees while excluding others who are similarly situated is a violation of Article 14. Long duration of service itself confers an equitable basis for consideration of regularization, overriding rigid, exclusionary policy interpretations.

Result: Writ petition allowed; the employer is directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for regularization within three months in accordance with principles of equity and equality.

O R D E R

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):

“Under the above stated facts and circumstances, the Petitioner sincerely prays the Hon’ble Court to be graciously pleased to direct the opposite parties-Bank to regularize his service as House Keeper-cum-Peon/Peon at any of the Branches of the Bank in the Zone and oblige.

And/or pass such further order/orders, direction/ directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

And for this act of your kindness the Petitioner is duty bound shall ever pray.”

The facts:

From the adumbrated facts on record it does emanate that the petitioner, casual worker (Sweeper), was engaged on daily wage basis in the Bhubaneswar CRP Headquarters Branch of UCO Bank, with effect from 18.07.2005, and upon instruction of the authority, he joined to work in the Branch of UCO Bank at Bidyutmarg, Bhubaneswar as Sweeper since 10.01.2011. In addition to discharge of such duty as Sweeper, as he was the only sub-staff available to the Branch, he has been attending the Branch Office regularly during the Office hours, i.e., from 9.30 a.m. till the Office is closed for the day.

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.”

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.

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 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.

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.”

The opposite parties-UCO Bank disputing th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 2797

ORISSA HIGH COURTMurahari Sri Raman, JKalinga Ray – AppellantVersusUCO Bank – RespondentW.P.(C). No.13691 of 2018

Cases Referred (3)

ORISSA HIGH COURT
Murahari Sri Raman, J
Kalinga Ray – Appellant
Versus
UCO Bank – Respondent
W.P.(C). No.13691 of 2018