Case at a Glance
Temporary workers engaged by Odisha Gramya Bank (now Odisha Grameen Bank) as drivers, sweepers, messengers, DTP operators and IT support staff challenged the bank’s 2019 rejection of their regularisation claim, which relied on Uma Devi and the absence of due selection. Pointing to a 1990 National Industrial Tribunal award on regularisation of temporary sweepers-cum-messengers in Regional Rural Banks, and to similar relief granted in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Chhattisgarh and Tripura, the Orissa High Court quashed the rejection. It directed the bank to frame a regularisation scheme within four months, modelled on the Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank scheme, with regularisation to follow with due regard to seniority.
The petitioners were engaged on a temporary basis in branches of Odisha Gramya Bank, a Regional Rural Bank with about 500 branches, in roles such as driver, sweeper, messenger, DTP operator, IT electrician and IT networking and hardware worker. They relied on an award of the National Industrial Tribunal dated 30 April 1990 recommending regularisation of part-time sweepers-cum-messengers in RRBs, and on decisions granting regularisation to similar workers of Cauvery Grameen Bank in Karnataka, Chaitanya Godavari Grameena Bank and Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank in Andhra Pradesh (where the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge in 2022), and RRBs in Chhattisgarh and Tripura.
In an earlier round (W.P.(C) No. 3325 of 2019, order of 14 February 2019), the High Court allowed them to represent to the bank, which was to decide in light of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 04 SC CK 0104, (2006) 4 SCC 1, State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 08 SC CK 0086, (2010) 9 SCC 247 and the Andhra Pradesh decision. By a common order of 27 May 2019, the bank rejected their claim. It argued that most had only 2–5 years of temporary service, that their continuance rested on interim orders, that they were engaged without notification or selection, that such posts do not exist under the RRB staff rules, and that a coordinate bench in Himansu Parida v. Union of India had relegated similar workers to the Industrial Tribunal.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a Regional Rural Bank reject regularisation of long-engaged temporary sweepers, messengers, drivers and support staff by citing Uma Devi, when an Industrial Tribunal award and decisions in other States have granted regularisation to similarly placed workers?
Uma Devi Is Not a Shield Against Fair Treatment
The petitioners relied on recent Supreme Court decisions including Jaggo v. Union of India, (2024) 12 SC CK 0073, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., (2025) 08 SC CK 0161, Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, (2026) 01 SC CK 1902, 2026 INSC 99 and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam, (2026) 05 SC CK 0472, 2026 INSC 523. The judgment reproduces Supreme Court reasoning that the State “cannot rely upon the mere form of engagement to deny fair and equitable treatment” and that Uma Devi “cannot be invoked as a blanket barrier to justify prolonged and continued engagements of a temporary or ad hoc nature”. The bank, for its part, relied on Uma Devi, Nanda Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 02 SC CK 0030, Upendra Singh v. State of Bihar, (2018) 02 SC CK 0069 and Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. State of M.P..
Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy recorded that “all the Petitioners were engaged in different branches of the Opp. Party-Bank” and noted the 1990 award directing regularisation of temporary sweepers-cum-messengers in RRBs, and that similar claims in Andhra Pradesh had been allowed, upheld in writ appeal and left undisturbed by the Supreme Court. In that light, the bank’s 2019 rejection, resting on Uma Devi and the absence of due procedure, could not be sustained. The court held that the bank must frame a scheme for regularisation, modelled on that of Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank.
What the Court Actually Held
- The bank’s common order dated 27 May 2019 rejecting the regularisation claims was quashed.
- Given the 1990 National Industrial Tribunal award and consistent decisions on similarly placed RRB workers, the bank must frame a scheme for regularising the petitioners.
- The scheme is to be framed within four months, on the lines of the Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank scheme.
- The petitioners’ services are to be regularised in due course under the scheme with due regard to seniority; all four writ petitions were disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It extends to Odisha’s RRB workers the benefit already secured by similar workers in other States.
- It reflects the recent Supreme Court line that Uma Devi cannot justify indefinite temporary engagement.
- It gives a concrete timeline for a scheme rather than leaving workers to further rounds of representation.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Workers
- Temporary staff in RRBs can rely on the 1990 award and parity with other States.
- Regularisation is to follow under a scheme with due regard to seniority.
For Counsel
- Cite the Jaggo, Shripal and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee line against blanket reliance on Uma Devi.
- Build parity arguments with orders in other States, especially those upheld by the Supreme Court.
- Note the model-scheme approach adopted here.
Key Takeaways
- Bank’s 2019 rejection quashed.
- Regularisation scheme within four months.
- Modelled on the Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank scheme.
- Regularisation to follow with due regard to seniority.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who benefits from this judgment?
The petitioners — temporary drivers, sweepers, messengers, DTP operators and IT support workers engaged by Odisha Grameen Bank — in the four writ petitions decided together.
Were they regularised immediately?
No. The bank must frame a scheme within four months, and the petitioners are to be regularised in due course under it, with due regard to seniority.
Why did the bank’s reliance on Uma Devi fail?
The court relied on the 1990 Industrial Tribunal award and consistent decisions granting regularisation to similar RRB workers, and found the bank’s rejection unsustainable.
Conclusion
The Orissa High Court aligned Odisha’s Regional Rural Bank workers with their counterparts elsewhere, requiring a time-bound regularisation scheme instead of a blanket refusal.
Practical takeaway: Long-engaged temporary workers can challenge Uma Devi-based refusals by showing parity, binding awards and the recent Supreme Court approach to exploitative temporary engagement.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com