MAYADHAR NAYAK vs STATE BANK OF INDIA, BBSR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.1274 of 2025
&
W.A. No.1310 of 2025
In the matter of Appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters
Patent of Patna High Court read with Article 4 of the Orissa
High Court Order, 1948 from judgment dated 20.06.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.24692 of
2012.
-----------
W.A. Nos.1274 & 1310 of 2025
1. Mayadhar Nayak
2. Baina Nayak


…
Appellants
-versus-
1. State Bank of India, represented
through its Chief General Manager,
Bhubaneswar.






2. Deputy General Manager, State
Bank of India, Zonal Office,
Bhubaneswar




3. Assistant General Manager, State
Bank of India, Government
Treasury Branch, Bhubaneswar.

…

Respondents
Advocates Appeared in this case

For Appellants - Mr. R. Rath & S.S. Rath,
Advocates
For Respondents - Mr. S.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate
M/s.Bibhudendra Dash,
P.K. Mohanty, N.C. Jena
Advocates
Page 1 of 12

CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 23.06.2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
per KSDJ
These two intra court Appeals have a common fact matrix,
parties also being the same. Appellants happen to be daily wagers
serving the Respondent-Bank since about three decades or so. They
were before this Court in OJC No.13193 of 1999 and W.P.(C)
No.8906 of 2007 wherein their essential grievance was as to non-
regularization of their service and also denial of the remuneration
on par with temporary employees of the Bank.
2. In W.P.(C) No.8906 of 2007, the following order was made on
24.07.2007:
“Heard learned counsel for the : petitioners.
The grievance of the petitioners in this writ application is that
even though they were working as Cleaners/Sweepers on daily wage
basis in the Government Treasury Branch of the State Bank of India at
Bhubaneswar for more than 12 years, the O.Ps. have not yet considered
their case for appointment against regular posts of Sweeper.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the O.Ps.
are now going to recruit candidates for seven posts of menial staff,
which include Canteen boys and Sweepers.
Looking at the nature of prayer and the of with we grievance
made in the writ application, this application wi dispose direction to the
O.Ps. to consider the case of writ ent) a the petitioners in the event they
are going to make any appointment to the posts of Sweeper Looking at
the length of engagement and the service rendered by the petitioners
under the Bank…”

Page 2 of 12

3. Their OJC No.13193 of 1999 came to be disposed off vide
order dated 05.12.2008, which reads as under:
“Heard.
In view of our order dated 24.7.2007 passed in W.P. (C)
No.8906 of 2007, no further order is required to be passed in this case.
We dispose of the writ application in terms of our order dated
24.7.2007 passed in the aforesaid writ application.
We make it clear that the case of the petitioners shall be
considered for regularization if any vacancy arises in future and so long
the work is available, the petitioners shall be allowed to continue to
work as such and shall not be substituted by any fresh hand The
petitioners shall be paid remuneration as applicable under the
Minimum Wages Act…”
In terms of the above order, Appellants were paid on 17.09.2021 the
arrears of minimum wages quantified at Rs.1,61,619/- (Rupees One
Lakh Sixty One Thousand Six Hundred Nineteen) only, each, for
the period between April, 2017 & June, 2021.
It is relevant to mention that in Misc. Case No.12245/1999 arising
out of the said OJC, a Co-ordinate Bench, vide order dated
28.10.1999, had inter alia directed “... if there is work for the
Petitioners, they may not be retrenched…”
4. Subsequently, Appellants filed W.P.(C) No.24692 of 2012
claiming temporary pay, bonus & arrears, etc. The Respondent-
Bank had filed I.A. No.6826 of 2022 seeking permission to retrench
the Appellants as being surplus workers. Appellants filed two
applications in I.A. Nos.7342 & 7343 of 2023 claiming bonus, the
status of temporary employee and such other benefits. On the basis
Page 3 of 12

of orders made on these applications, the Bank retrenched the
Appellants on 19.07.2025 under Section 25F of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 by paying Rs.3,30,934/- to each of them as retrenchment
of compensation and payment in lieu of statutory notice. Learned
Single Judge vide common order dated 20.06.2025 dismissed
W.P.(C) No.24692 of 2012 and W.P.(C) No.15989 of 2020.
Aggrieved thereby, these Appeals have been preferred.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellants vehemently submits that
the impugned order is fraught with several infirmities: Firstly, he
failed to see the long and spotless service since 1995; in the light of
Jaggo v. Union of India , 2024 INSC 1034 & Shripal v. Nagar
Nigam , 2025 INSC 144 the Appellants ought to have been given
regularization with all consequential benefits, both service and
monetary. Secondly, all those, who have been similarly
circumstanced, have been drawing the emoluments having secured
temporary status and therefore, at least that ought to have been
granted. Thirdly, the two orders, namely, the one dated 24.07.2007
entered in their W.P.(C) No.8906 of 2007 and the other dated
05.12.2008 entered in their OJC No.13193 of 1999 have not been
properly construed by the learned Single Judge to the due
advantage of Appellants. Fourthly, the impugned order is bereft of
elements of justice and that itself would constitute an error
Page 4 of 12

apparent on the face of record warranting interference of this
Court.
6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.S.P.Mishra representing the
Respondent-Bank resists the Appeals making submission in
justification of the impugned order and reasons on which it has
been constructed. He draws attention of the Court to the
chronology of events including what compensation has been
awarded by the Industrial Tribunal to other similarly retrenched
employees by the C.G.I.T in I.D. Case No.7 of 2007. He tells that the
Labour Court has awarded only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of
retrenchment compensation to each of 125 workmen and that the
same has been challenged by the Bank in W.P.(C) No.12239 of 2025
and by the Trade Union in W.P.(C) No.8206 of 2025, both now
pending for consideration. He also presses into service doctrine of
res judicata because of certain observations made in the aforesaid
orders dated 24.07.2007 & 05.12.2008 respectively in W.P.(C)
No.8906 of 2007 & OJC No.13193 of 1999. He also highlighted the
efforts made by the Bank in the Court-constituted conciliation that
did not bear fruit, there being no fair proposal from the side of
Appellants.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the bulky Appeal papers, we are inclined to grant
indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:
Page 5 of 12

7.1. It is worthwhile to note that the Appellants had secured
orders dated 24.07.2007 & 05.12.2008 respectively in W.P.(C)
No.8906 of 2007 & OJC No.13193 of 1999, which effectively did not
grant relief of regularization or unconditional appointment to the
eventual vacancy which would arise in future. True it is that two
vacancies arose subsequent to these orders; however, the
management of the Bank took a considered decision to go for out-
sourcing. This policy decision taken in the light of IT development
in the banking business has not been challenged before us. In terms
of the said orders, Appellants have been paid minimum wages, is
not in dispute. The direction to continue the Appellants being
subject to availability of the work, would not much come to their
aid.
7.2. AS TO CONCILIATORY EFFORTS
7.2.1. This Court, vide order dated 18.05.2026, had said as under:
“By our order dated 11.05.2026, we had said as under:
“Heard learned counsel for the Appellants and
Mr. Mishra, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the
Management.
A plethora of litigations are noticed from the record.
We have noted march of law on regularisation from
Dharwad Disit P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage
Employees vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. AIR 1990
SC 883 case up to Madan Singh vs. State of
Haryana, 2026 INSC 379. There appears to be a
prima facie case for granting relief to the Appellants
Page 6 of 12

herein, who admittedly have put in service as
Sweepers, first Appellant from 1994, and the second
from 1995. The law, as it now stands in the June of
its life, tilts in favour of the Appellant’s herein,
inasmuch as, arguably, the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge has missed the march.
At this stage, we suggested to both the sides to
negotiate a settlement with fairness and justice.
Mr. Mishra, learned Sr. Advocate in his usual style
agrees with this proposal and wants to confirm with
his client. To facilitate the same, a short
accommodation as of necessity needs to be extended.
In the above circumstances, call this matter along
with other connected cases for further hearing at
02.00 p.m. on 18.05.2026 instant.”
2. Learned Senior Counsel-Mr. Mishra appearing for the
Respondent Bank submits that since his client is a statutory
body established under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, if the
proposal from the Employees comes forth, the Management will
be in a position to take a decision, may be with bit of sympathy.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Employees submits that his
clients were appointed way back in the 1994-1995; they have
been granted a temporary status and therefore, temporary salary
has to be extended to them in terms of policy statement. When
we confronted him with the orders dated 24.07.2007 and
05.12.2008 passed in earlier rounds of litigation, he submits that
his clients were working as temporary employee, which facts has
been borne out by Annexure-2 series. He also tells that his
clients were paid bonus during the period between 2006 and
2022, which aspect is denied by learned Senior Counsel-Mr.
Mishra. Be that as it may.

In our considered view, the parties shall sit under the shadow of
a tree and explore the possibility of an amicable settlement on
the following lines:
(i) They shall decide as to the effective date of regularization of
services and the grant of service and financial benefits on that
basis.
Page 7 of 12

(ii) The grant of bonus for the period after 2022, if already bonus
was granted to the employees during the period between 2006 &
2002.
(iii) Parties to come back to the Court hopefully with settlement.
We make it clear that in the event, no settlement is arrived at,
on the next date of hearing, matter shall be heard on merits by
this Bench itself.

It hardly needs to be stated that the jurisdictional officials of the
Bank shall invite the employees for negotiation by a written
notice of one week advance to the employees on the addresses
and mobile phone numbers to be furnished by them to the
learned advocate on record appearing for the Bank within one
week from this day.

It is further made clear that decision in this regard has to be
taken by the jurisdictional authorities of the Bank, so that on the
next date of hearing, the Respondents shall not plead that they
do not have power…”

7.2.2. In terms of the above order, although both the sides gathered
and discussed certain aspects of the dispute and the possible
measures whereby it can be put to an end. All being said, the
conciliatory efforts did not fructify. It is on record that the
Respondent-Bank had proposed to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakh to the
each of the Appellants as a lump sum compensation to put the
dispute to burial. However, the Appellants declined the offer as
being frugal. After the long argument by both the Advocates, we
interacted with the Appellants personally present before the Court.
The interaction was in Odiya language known to them. The
Appellants specifically said that if they are given Rs.25 lakh, they
would go home happily. Mr. Mishra argues that the claim is too
Page 8 of 12

much on the higher side. He cited Apex Court decision in Civil
Appeal No.6882 of 2016 between State Bank of India v. Shyam
Sundar Adhikari disposed off vide order dated 01.03.2023 wherein
a sum of Rs.5 lakh is paid to the employee. This judgment although
gives a broad indication, is not law declared under Article 141 of
the Constitution, inasmuch as the same has been rendered under
Article 142, as has been specifically mentioned in it. Secondly, the
length of service rendered by the employee in that case was with
some breaks during the period between 1996 & 2010. In the
Appeals at hand, admittedly the Appellants have put in about 30
years of spotless service.
7.3. AS TO WHY & WHAT COMPENSATORY RELIEF IN LIEU
OF SUBSTANTIVE:
7.3.1. The Appellants have been fighting the legal battles since
about three decades, complete justice eluding for one or the other
reason. If they are directed to be regularized with effect from the
date they completed ten years of continuous service, in the light of
Jaggo v. Union of India , 2024 INSC 1034 & Shripal v. Nagar
Nigam , 2025 INSC 144, the Bank has to bear the brunt of losing
huge money. At the same time, their W.P.(C) No.8906 of 2007 &
OJC No.13193 of 1999 did not yield much milk on the ground. The
prayer made in the Writ Petitions from which these Appeals have
arisen to an extent have to suffer res judicata , there being only a
Page 9 of 12

direction to pay them minimum wages, which admittedly have
been paid. We have also noticed a Co-ordinate Bench order dated
17.03.2026 entered in W.P.(C) No.8128 of 2019 between Secretary,
Berhampur Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Berhmapur, Ganjam
vs. Bhaba Sundar Dalai wherein a sum of Rs.10 lakh has been
awarded in lieu of regularization/retrenchment compensation.
Here again, the facts are a bit different: there was no impediment of
res judicata in the said case; the length of service rendered by those
employees was also not that long; the Bank was only a Cooperative
Bank unlike a nationalized Bank in these Appeals. The Appellants
have about ten more years left for their superannuation. Lastly, we
are told at the Bar that both the Appellants belong to Scheduled
Castes.
7.3.2. Rupees 5 lakh offer made by the Bank as compensation is too
frugal to be mentioned, when bread is costlier than blood, Rupee
value now-a-days dwindling down. The Appellants, who have
given their sweat & blood, cannot seek gainful employment
elsewhere at their present declining age. They were working only
as sweepers with not much education nor with due social status. In
the AI era, we are not sure that they would be able to eke out their
livelihood, having spent prime of their life blood in the menial job
all these years. Even Rs.10 lakh compensation awarded by the Co-
ordinate Bench to the workmen of a Cooperative Bank would not
Page 10 of 12

constitute a solid yardstick for determining what should be paid to
these poor persons. Should Appellants be regularized in service, it
would incur more expenditure than otherwise. Respondent is a
mighty Banking Organization unlike a Co-operative Bank. That
being said, the claim made by the Appellants for Rs.25 lakh each is
on the higher side, cannot be much disputed by a neutral arbiter.
In our considered view, a lump sum award for Rs.20,00,000/-
(Rupees twenty lakh) each, would do complete justice to both the
sides.
In the above circumstances, we make the following order:

(i) These Writ Appeals are allowed in part. The impugned
order of the learned Single Judge is set at naught. The
subject W.P.(C) No.8906 of 2007 & OJC No.13193 of 1999 are
partly favoured, granting secondary relief as under.
(ii) In lieu of regularization and otherwise continuation of
service, each of the Appellants shall be paid a lump sum
compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh) only,
within eight (8) weeks; that collectively works out to
Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakh) only.

(iii) Delay in complying with the direction to make the
payment, as above, would entail the Respondent-Bank with
otherwise avoidable liability to pay interest @ 1% per
mensem for the first month, and at 2% for the period next
following.

(iv) The interest component, if any, on account of delayed
payment of compensation may be recovered from the
erring officials of the Bank personally, of course after the
same is remitted to the Appellants.
Page 11 of 12

Since this judgment has been rendered in a fact specific scenario,
we do not intend to make it a binding precedent or a Rule of
Parity.
Costs made easy.
Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.

(Krishna S. Dixit)
Judge

(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge









Orissa High Court, Cuttack
rd
The 23 Day of June, 2026/Bijay/Sarbani

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SARBANI DASH
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 25-Jun-2026 19:21:47
Page 12 of 12