Odisha HC Quashes Rejection, Directs Grameen Bank To Frame Scheme To Regularise Temporary Sweepers, Messengers And Other Workers

The petitioners were engaged at different times on a temporary basis by Odisha Grameen Bank in roles including driver, sweeper, messenger, attendant, DTP operator, IT electrician and IT networking/hardware worker.

They sought regularisation, relying on a 1990 National Industrial Tribunal award concerning temporary or part-time sweepers-cum-messengers in Regional Rural Banks and decisions granting relief to similarly situated workers in other states.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court had directed the Bank to consider their representations in light of relevant Supreme Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court decisions.

The Bank rejected their claims on 27 May 2019, principally on the grounds that they had not been engaged through the prescribed process and their cases did not fall within the principles in Uma Devi.

The petitioners challenged that rejection in these writ petitions.

Under Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, regularisation is not automatic merely because a temporary or daily-wage employee has continued in service; the Constitution Bench recognised a one-time measure for eligible irregularly appointed employees who had worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts without court or tribunal protection.

The Court also considered the National Industrial Tribunal’s award of 30 April 1990, which stated that full-time work performed by part-time sweepers-cum-messengers could warrant regularisation from the date of continuous engagement.

It relied on decisions of the Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Tripura High Courts concerning regularisation of comparable workers, including Andhra Pradesh decisions upheld on appeal and by the Supreme Court.

The judgment also records the parties’ reliance on later Supreme Court authorities concerning long-term temporary engagement and the obligations of a model employer; however, the Court’s operative reasoning chiefly rests on the Tribunal award and the comparable High Court decisions.

The Court noted that the petitioners had been engaged in different branches and capacities, and that the Tribunal award and decisions from other states addressed comparable temporary sweeper and messenger engagements within Regional Rural Banks.

In that context, it considered the Bank’s blanket rejection—based on the absence of formal appointment procedures and Uma Devi—insufficient to dispose of the petitioners’ claims without a scheme-based consideration.

Rather than directing immediate individual regularisation, the Court required the Bank to frame a scheme, taking guidance from the scheme framed by Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank.

It directed the Bank to frame a regularisation scheme, in light of the Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank scheme, within four months of receiving the order.

Once framed, the petitioners’ services are to be regularised in due course, with due regard to seniority.

The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.