20 years of ‘exploitative’ terms: Orissa High Court slams UCO Bank for denying regularisation to its long serving sweeper

Justice Murahari Sri Raman heard the matter on April 15.

The order noted that when a person is engaged as a casual worker/sweeper in an organisation uninterruptedly for a substantial number of years (long-standing engagement), he is entitled to be considered for regularisation in service.

It continued that denial of such a benefit would entail arbitrariness, rendering social injustice, and offending provisions of Article 14 and Article 38 of the Constitution of India.

Case of regularisation after 20 years of service

The petitioner, Kalinga Ray, was engaged as a casual sweeper at UCO Bank’s Bhubaneswar CRP headquarters branch in July 2005. He was later moved to the Bidtut Marg branch in 2011, where he continued to work uninterruptedly.

Despite performing the duties of both a sweeper and a peon due to staff inadequacies, the bank refused his regularisation, citing a 2015 circular that required employees to be on the “permanent rolls” as of August 2015 to be eligible for conversion to full-time housekeeper-cum-peons.

The bank argued that Ray was a “casual worker” rather than a “casual sweeper,” and therefore did not satisfy the specific criteria for regularisation under their existing settlements.

Petitioner’s case

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Surendra Nath Panda submitted that the petitioner, even if the petitioner’s service is not recognised as working since 2005 seamlessly, at least from January 10, 2011, the UCO Bank has admitted the petitioner to have been working till date in the Bidyut Marg Branch in Bhubaneswar.

He stated that the petitioner had fulfilled the eligibility criteria stipulated in the Circular/Guidelines issued by the UCO Bank, and his service ought to be directed for consideration of regularisation.

‘Petitioner has been working for more than 20 years’

• There is no ambiguity that part-time sweepers/casual workers can be considered for absorption in service when their services are perennially required and have been exploited by assigning duties not only of a sweeper but also of a peon in the absence of or inadequate supporting staff.
• The petitioner has been working for more than twenty years if his engagement is considered since the year 2005, or ten years if engagement is considered when he joined and has been working at Bidyut Marg Branch of UCO Bank since 2011.
• The opposite parties have not denied in specific terms that the petitioner has been working in the CRP Headquarters, Bhubaneswar, since July 18, 2005.

‘Service of petitioner utilised on exploitative terms’

• Only dispute that the bank sought to raise is this, that the petitioner, having left the job thereat, joined the Bidyut Marg Branch of UCO Bank.
• In such a view of the matter, the service of the petitioner has been utilised on exploitative terms by the UCO Bank since 2005, maybe in a different capacity.
• Nothing is sought to agitate by the opposite parties that he could not perform the duty of the Housekeeper-cum-Peon efficiently or effectively when he was entrusted to do so.
• If the services rendered to the UCO Bank by the petitioner are considered since 2005, it would be more than twenty years.

• The long-standing engagement and services being exploited by him, undisputedly since 2005, it presupposes that the Bank needs the services of the petitioner.
• Having worked in the UCO Bank for several years, merely culling out subtle discrimination between “casual worker” and “sweeper”, which runs contrary and counter to circulars of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, the case of the petitioner for regularisation cannot be overlooked.