The Orissa High Court said the daily wagers had given their “sweat and blood” to SBI and said the bank’s offer of Rs 5 lakh was too little at a time when “bread is costlier than blood”.
The court noted that the complainants had first approached it in 1999, saying that despite years of service, SBI had neither regularised them nor extended the benefits available to temporary employees.
The Orissa High Court has asked the State Bank of India (SBI) to pay Rs 20 lakh each to two daily wage sweepers who had given their “sweat & blood” to the bank and are unlikely to get new jobs “in the AI era” instead of regularisation after working in menial jobs for almost three decades.
A division bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash was hearing appeals filed by one Mayadhar Nayak and Baina Nayak against a single judge’s judgement dated June 20, 2025, dismissing their claims for regularisation, bonus, arrears and other service benefits after almost 30 years of service as daily-wage sweepers at the SBI’s Government Treasury Branch in Bhubaneswar.
“The Appellants, who have given their sweat & blood, cannot seek gainful employment elsewhere at their present declining age,” concluded the court on June 23.
The court said, “We are not sure that they will be able to eke out their livelihood in the AI (artificial intelligence) era, having spent prime of their life blood in the menial job all these years,” and declined the offer of Rs 5 lakh as a one-time settlement by the SBI.
The judges stated the bank’s offer of Rs 5 lakh to each of them was “too frugal” at a time when “blood is costlier than bread”.
The controversy originates from the mid-1990s when the two appellants were employed as daily-wage sweepers. Despite many rounds of litigation since 1999 and prior rulings by the High Court that they should stay in service subject to availability of employment and be paid minimum pay, they were never regularised and were ultimately retrenched in July 2025, resulting in the present appeals.
30 years of legal battles
Mayadhar Nayak and Baina Nayak have been working as daily pay sweepers since 1994 and 1995 respectively, the court observed.
They had originally moved the High Court in 1999, saying that SBI had neither regularised them despite years of service nor provided them the advantages offered to temporary employees.
The High Court had urged the bank in July 2007 to consider their claims in case appointments were made to the job of sweeper.
Later, in December 2008, while disposing of another petition, it ordered that they should stay in service as long as employment was available and be paid salaries under the Minimum Wages Act.
As per these guidelines, SBI paid Rs 1,61,619 to each worker in September 2021 as arrears of minimum pay for the period April 2017 to June 2021.
After 3 decades, retrenchment
Later the workers filed another writ suit demanding temporary salary, bonus, arrears and other perks given to temporary employees.
During the pendency of those proceedings, SBI moved for authorisation to retrench them on the pretext that they had become excess workers.
Both the workers were retrenched by the bank on July 19, 2025, under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and were paid Rs 3,30,934 each towards retrenchment compensation and salary in lieu of the required notice.
The writ petitions were thereafter rejected by the single judge and the present appeals have arisen therefrom.
Arguments before the High Court
The attorney appearing for the appellants submitted that the single judge did not respect their lengthy and unblemished service of around three decades.
It was argued that the workers were entitled to regularisation with all resultant service and monetary advantages on the basis of the rulings of the Supreme Court in Jaggo vs Union of India (2024) and Shripal vs Nagar Nigam (2025).
The appellants additionally contended that employees similarly circumstanced were awarded temporary status and associated emoluments and they ought to have, at least, been provided such perks also.
The single judge did not adequately grasp the prior rulings of July 24, 2007 and December 5, 2008 passed by the High Court requiring the bank to consider them for appointment and continue them in service subject to availability of employment.
S P Mishra, senior advocate for SBI, opposing the appeals, supported the single judge’s ruling, claiming that the prior decisions did not give a right to regularisation.
He contended that the workers had previously been paid statutory retrenchment compensation and that many of their claims were precluded by the law of res judicata.
The Latin phrase res judicata means “a matter judged.” In short, it implies that a cause of action cannot be litigated again after there has been a final judgement.
Mishra also referred to the award of compensation by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal to similarly retrenched employees in another dispute and pointed out that the awards were themselves under challenge before the High Court.
The bank had tried to settle the dispute through court-directed conciliation, but the workers had not put forward a reasonable proposal for settlement, he added.
‘Rs 5 lakh is a pittance when bread costs more than blood’
The division bench tried to resolve the long-pending dispute through negotiations before deciding the appeals on merits.
In May 2026, it directed both parties to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement on issues including regularisation, service benefits and bonus.
However, the exercise failed.
The judgement noted that SBI had offered to bury the controversy with a one-time settlement of Rs 5 lakh apiece.
The appellants refused the proposal and told the bench that they would settle the matter if they were paid Rs 25 lakh each.
The bench observed that:
“Rupees 5 lakh offer made by the Bank as compensation is too frugal to be mentioned, when bread is costlier than blood, Rupee value now-a-days dwindling down.”
It rejected the bank’s offer as “wholly inadequate”.
The judges said the workers had only been doing cleaning jobs, had low education and social status and had worked for the bank for nearly 30 years, so it was unrealistic to expect them to find other jobs.
The court said Rs 10 lakh compensation awarded in an earlier case involving a cooperative bank cannot be a proper benchmark, considering the longer service put in by the appellants and the fact that SBI is a nationalised bank.
It further observed that the demand of the workers for Rs 25 lakh apiece was on the higher side.
Why the court refused regularisation
While expressing compassion for the workers, the High Court concluded that it could not mandate their regularisation.
The prior High Court decisions had only asked SBI to consider them against future vacancies and continue them in service as long as work was available.
Those directions did not create a legal entitlement to permanent employment.
The bench also noted that SBI had subsequently developed a policy of outsourcing such work due to technological changes in the banking sector and that the policy decision had never been challenged.
It further found that mandating retrospective regularisation at this stage would impose a severe financial burden on the bank, since aspects of the issue had already attained finality because of prior litigation.
Final directions
Having found that compensation was the fairest solution, the division bench partly allowed the appeals and replaced the workers’ demand for regularisation with substantial monetary compensation.
“In our considered view, a lump sum award of Rs 20,00,000 each would do complete justice to both sides,” the court ruled while setting aside the single judge’s decision.
It directed SBI to pay the amount within eight weeks, taking the total compensation payable to Rs 40 lakh.
The bench additionally ruled that any delay in payment would attract interest at 1 per cent per month for the first month and 2 per cent per month thereafter.
Significantly, it directed that the interest burden, if incurred due to delayed compliance, may be recovered directly from the erring bank officials after the amount is first paid to the workers.
Before parting with the case, the court stressed that the verdict had been delivered in a fact-specific situation and was not intended to serve as a binding precedent or a rule of parity for future disputes concerning regularisation or retrenchment.
