Batch of writ petitions by long-serving daily-wage/temporary bank employees challenging rejection of their regularization claims. The court quashed the rejections and directed the Bank to take a fresh decision on regularization/absorption within three months, applying Supreme Court precedent, maintaining status quo meanwhile.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos. 9694, 9695, 10255, 10257, 10750, 12150, 12152 of 2019 & CONTC No.2061 of 2019, W.P.(C) Nos.14166, 15372, 15374, 15379, 16518, 16522, 16539, 16542, 29307, 29581 & 40989 of 2021
W.P.(C) No.10255 of 2019 & 29511 of 2021
Sushanta Kumar Mohanty
Petitioner
In Person
-versus-
Bank of Baroda
…. Opposite Parties Mr. G.K. Acharya, Sr. Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 06.11.2025 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners in the present batch of Writ Petitions, along with Mr. Susanta Kumar Mohanty, Petitioner in person in W.P.(C) Nos.10255 of 2019 and 29511 of 2021 and Mr. G.K. Acharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank of Baroda.
3. All these Writ Petitions have been filed inter alia challenging the rejection of the claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of regularization.
4. It is contended that all the Petitioners are continuing on daily wages basis in different branches of the Bank since long. On the face of such long continuance on daily wages basis / temporary basis
// 2 //
when they were not regularized in their services, they approached the Bank claiming regularization. However, such claim of the Petitioners was rejected vide different communications issued by the Bank, which are the subject matter of challenge in the present batch of Writ Petitions.
4.1 . It is further contended that on the face of rejection of their claim, all the Petitioners were allowed to continue as before and it clearly shows that the Bank requires the services of the Petitioners.
4.2 . It is accordingly contended that in view of such long continuance on daily wages basis / temporary basis, the ground on which their claim was rejected is no more sustainable and a fresh decision is required to be made, taking into account, the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 as well as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018.
5. Mr. G. K. Acharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank on the other hand contended that on the face of the rejection of their claim to get the benefit of regularization, Petitioners are continuing as before on daily wages basis / temporary basis, taking into account the interim orders passed by this Court.
Page 2 of 4
// 3 //
It is accordingly contended that since Petitioners are continuing after rejection of their claim for regularization because of the interim orders passed by this Court, it cannot be held that after such rejection, the Bank has permitted the Petitioners to continue further
5.1. It is also contended that since the Petitioners are not continuing as against any sanctioned post, they do not have any right of regularization and their claim has been rightly rejected.
6. To the submission made by the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the Bank, learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners contended that Petitioners are not protected by any interim order of this Court and after rejection of their claim for regularization, they have been allowed to continue on daily wages/ temporary basis. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.10255 of 2019 and W.P.(C) No.29511 of 2021 however contended that, Petitioner was protected by an interim order passed on 27.09.2021 in W.P.(C) No.29511 of 2021 only.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submissions made and the fact that on the face of the rejection of the claim for regularization, Petitioners are continuing, this Court while disposing all the Writ Petitions with quashing of the impugned rejection so available in the present batch of Writ Petitions, directs the Opposite Party-Bank to take a fresh decision on the Petitioners claim to get the benefit of regularization / absorption, taking into account the
Page 3 of 4
// 4 //
decision in the case of Jaggo, Shripal and Dharma Singh as cited (supra). This Court directs the Opposite Party-Bank to take a decision within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. Till a decision is taken, status-quo as on today with regard to continuance of the Petitioners be maintained.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the Writ Petitions stand disposed of.
9. Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected cases.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge
Subrat
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 11-Nov-2025 12:03:44
Page 4 of 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Bank's rejection of the daily-wage employees' claim for regularization/absorption was sustainable given their long continuance in service.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors.Applied¶7
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 · Who else cites this
Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, GhaziabadApplied¶7
2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 · Who else cites this
Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr.Applied¶7
Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018
Sushanta Kumar Mohanty
Bank of Baroda
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
