Why Orissa HC ordered SBI to pay ₹40 lakh to two former sweepers

The Orissa High Court has asked the State Bank of India (SBI) to pay ₹20 lakh each to two daily-wage sweepers who lost their jobs after working at the bank for nearly 30 years. The court said they were unlikely to get another job "in the AI era" because they had spent most of their working lives doing manual work, according to a report by The Indian Express. 

Rejecting SBI's offer of ₹5 lakh each, a division bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash said the two workers had given their "sweat & blood" to the bank. The court ordered SBI to pay a total of ₹40 lakh within eight weeks instead of regularising their jobs.

Court says ₹5 lakh was too little

The case involved Mayadhar Nayak and Baina Nayak, who worked as daily-wage sweepers at SBI's Government Treasury Branch in Bhubaneswar from 1994 and 1995.

Don't Miss: IMD sounds twin alert: Severe heat wave in UP, extremely heavy rain in Northeast

"The Appellants, who have given their sweat & blood, cannot seek gainful employment elsewhere at their present declining age," the court said.

"In the AI (artificial intelligence) era, we are not sure that they would be able to eke out their livelihood, having spent prime of their life blood in the menial job all these years," the bench added.

The judges also said SBI's offer of ₹5 lakh each was far too low.

"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."

A legal fight that lasted nearly 30 years

The two workers first moved the High Court in 1999, saying SBI had not made them permanent employees or given them the benefits given to temporary staff.

In 2007, the High Court asked SBI to consider them if sweeper posts became available. In 2008, it said they should be allowed to continue working as long as work was available and should be paid under the Minimum Wages Act.

In September 2021, SBI paid ₹1,61,619 to each worker as unpaid minimum wages for the period between April 2017 and June 2021.

They lost their jobs in 2025

The workers later asked the court for temporary status, bonus, unpaid wages and other benefits.

While the case was still going on, SBI said they were no longer needed and removed them from service on July 19, 2025, under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Each worker was paid ₹3,30,934 as retrenchment compensation and salary instead of notice. A single judge later dismissed their petitions, after which they appealed.

Why the court did not make them permanent

The High Court said it could not order SBI to make the workers permanent employees.

It said the earlier court orders only asked the bank to consider them if vacancies came up and allow them to continue while work was available. Those orders did not give them a legal right to permanent jobs.

The court also noted that SBI had started outsourcing such work because of changes in the banking sector. It said making the workers permanent after so many years would put a big financial burden on the bank.

Why the court gave compensation instead

The judges said giving compensation was the fairest solution.

They noted that the workers had spent almost 30 years doing only sweeping work, had little education and would find it very hard to get another job at their age.

The court also said ₹10 lakh, which had been given in an earlier case involving a cooperative bank, was not enough to compare with this case because these workers had served longer and SBI is a nationalised bank. At the same time, it said the workers' demand for ₹25 lakh each was too high.

"In our considered view, a lump sum award for ₹20,00,000/- each, would do complete justice to both the sides," the bench said.

What the court ordered

The High Court set aside the earlier order and directed SBI to pay ₹20 lakh each to the two workers within eight weeks, taking the total amount to ₹40 lakh.

It also said that if the payment is delayed, SBI will have to pay 1% interest per month for the first month and 2% per month after that.

The court added that if the delay happens because of bank officials, the interest amount can later be recovered from those officials.

The judges made it clear that this order is based on the facts of this case and should not be treated as a rule for all similar cases.