Authority: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack

Order Date: 28 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Apurba Ranjan Mohanty & Others (represented by Ms. B. Senapati, Advocate).
  • Opposite Parties: Odisha Grameen Bank & Others (represented by M/s K.C. Kanungo, Advocate and Mr. A. Saa, CGC for O.P. No.4).
  • Writ Petitions: W.P.(C) Nos. 19736, 19730, 19734 & 19737 of 2019 (CNR No. ODHC010578742019). All were heard jointly in hybrid mode; W.P.(C) No.19736 of 2019 taken as lead case.
  • Nature of Dispute: Petitioners, engaged on a temporary basis as drivers, sweepers, messengers, DTP operators, IT electricians, networking and hardware workers across the 500 branches of Odisha Grameen Bank, sought regularisation and pay parity with regular bank employees. The bank had rejected their claim on the ground that they were never appointed under any statutory notification and that the Supreme Court’s Uma Devi judgment did not apply.
  • Background: The petitioners relied on a series of precedents:
  • National Industrial Tribunal award dated 30‑04‑1990 directing regularisation of part‑time sweepers‑cum‑messengers.
  • High Court of Karnataka (03‑03‑2006) and Andhra Pradesh (27‑12‑2017) decisions granting regularisation to similarly situated workers.
  • Subsequent judgments from Andhra Pradesh (04‑01‑2020), Chhattisgarh (22‑08‑2022), Tripura (16‑08‑2022) and others confirming the award’s applicability.
  • Supreme Court Uma Devi (para 44, 53) and M.L. Keshari decisions, which outline a one‑time regularisation measure for irregular appointments of ten‑year continuous service in sanctioned posts.
  • The Court’s own earlier order in W.P.(C) No.3325 of 2019 (14‑02‑2019) which had permitted petitioners to approach the bank for relief.
  • Bank’s Submissions: The bank argued that:

1. Petitioners had not completed the ten‑year service required under Uma Devi.

2. Their engagements were purely contractual/part‑time without any sanctioned post under the RRB (Appointment & Promotion) Rules, 1987/2010/2017.

3. The Uma Devi judgment cannot be used to compel regularisation where the original appointment was not made by a competent authority.

4. Cited several Supreme Court and High Court decisions (e.g., Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, Nanda Kumar, Upendra Singh, Vibhuti Shankar Pandey, Himansu Parida) supporting the view that temporary or ad‑hoc appointments do not create a right to regularisation.

  • Petitioners’ Counter‑arguments: Emphasised that the Tribunal award and subsequent High Court rulings constitute a binding precedent; the bank’s rejection ignored the Supreme Court’s directive to regularise irregular appointments that have continued for ten years or more in de‑facto sanctioned posts.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the award of the National Industrial Tribunal (30‑04‑1990) and the series of High Court judgments are applicable to the petitioners.
  • The earlier impugned order dated 27‑05‑2019 rejecting the regularisation claim is quashed.
  • Odisha Grameen Bank is directed to frame a regularisation scheme for the petitioners, modelled on the scheme framed by Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, within four months of receipt of this order.
  • The scheme must ensure regularisation of the petitioners in the posts (or similar posts) they are presently occupying, with due regard to seniority.
  • All the writ petitions are disposed of, and a photocopy of this order shall be placed in the connected cases.

Topics: Legal Regularisation, Employment Law, Regional Rural Banks