Cuttack: Orissa high court has come down heavily on senior govt officials for failing to comply with its order to reinstate a former Group D employee whose service was terminated after being engaged on a temporary/ad hoc basis for 22 years, observing that their “dormant and lethargic attitude” could itself amount to contempt of court.The HC was hearing on Aug 25 a contempt petition filed by Ganesh Chandra Patra, whose termination from the office of regional transport officer (RTO), Chandikhole, had been set aside. Taking note of repeated requests by officials for more time, the HC said such pleas could not become a routine excuse for delaying compliance. “We are given to understand that the files have been created, moved and travelling from one desk to another, yet the decision is a far cry,” the HC said.A division bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M S Raman made it clear that judicial directions could not be kept pending on the pretext of administrative processing. “The court cannot be a mute spectator and act on the tune of the govt officials,” the judges observed. The bench further stressed that “the dormant and/or lethargic attitude of the officials in ensuring the compliance of the order is also a contemptuous act”.Accordingly, the bench directed the alleged contemnors — principal secretaries Usha Padhi and Sanjeeb Kumar Mishra, transport commissioner Amitabh Thakur and RTO Chandikhole Sisir Kumar Sahoo — to file affidavits explaining their conduct within one week. The deadline was declared “peremptory and mandatory”. The matter will be heard on Sept 1.Patra was appointed as a process-server (Group-D) on a temporary/ad hoc basis against a vacant post at RTO, Chandikhole, on Jan 16, 1997. His engagement was terminated on Dec 21, 2019, following abolition of temporary/ad hoc posts.After prolonged litigation, a division bench of high court on May 13, 2025, set aside the disengagement and directed the authorities to reinstate him “forthwith” in the same position along with consequential service and financial benefits. The state’s challenge before Supreme Court was subsequently dismissed. The bench expressed particular displeasure over the continued delay despite Supreme Court having dismissed the state govt’s special leave petition against the HC’s order on Jan 16, 2026.Despite this, the HC found that its order had not been implemented. “It appears that they are sitting tight over the matter and stubbornness is manifested from their conduct,” the judges observed.
