CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has come down heavily on four senior officials of state Transport and Finance departments in a contempt case over non-compliance of order for reinstatement of a staff at the office of the regional transport officer (RTO), Chandikhole.
While hearing the contempt petition filed by Ganesh Chandra Patra, the staff concerned, the court directed former principal secretary in the Commerce and Transport department Usha Padhee, principal secretary Finance department Sanjeeb Kumar Mishra, Transport commissioner Amitabh Thakur and RTO, Chandikhole, Sisir Kumar Sahoo, to file affidavits explaining their conduct within a week. The bench made the timeline “peremptory and mandatory” and posted the matter for September 1.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice MS Raman expressed strong displeasure over the “dormant and lethargic attitude” of senior Odisha government officials in complying with its order to reinstate Patra, warning that continued inaction in implementing a court directive could itself amount to contempt.
“The court cannot be a mute spectator and act on the tune of the government officials,” the bench observed adding, “the dormant and/or lethargic attitude of the officials in ensuring the compliance of the order is also a contemptuous act”.
Patra had been appointed as a process-server (group-D) on a temporary/ad hoc basis against a vacant post in the office of the RTO, Chandikhole, in Jajpur district, on January 16, 1997. His engagement was terminated on December 21, 2019, following abolition of temporary/ad hoc posts at the RTO office.
After approaching the High Court in 2020 seeking regularisation, Patra secured relief in litigation that culminated in a division bench order on May 13, 2025. The court set aside his disengagement and directed the authorities to reinstate him forthwith in the same position, besides extending consequential service and financial benefits legally admissible to him.
The state challenged the order before the Supreme Court, but its special leave petition was dismissed on January 16, 2026. Despite this, the High Court noted that its directions had still not been duly implemented.
“The alleged contemnors are sitting tight over the matter and stubbornness is manifested from their conduct,” the bench observed, expressing concern that every time the contempt matter came up, the officials sought more time to comply.
The court was particularly critical of the manner in which the matter was being handled administratively. “The files have been created, moved and travelling from one desk to another, yet the decision is a far cry,” it said.