Orissa High Court orders govt official to pay Rs 1 lakh over ‘criminal’ delay in pay revision plea

‘Criminal delay’

• No decision was taken despite the long lapse of time. A decision was made on February 19, 2026, offering an irrelevant explanation as the justification for the delay.
• This is a case of criminal brooking of delay by the contemnor who has taken the decision belatedly and a copy thereof is served on the complainant on February 23, 2026.
• The conduct of the contemnor is contumacious to say the least. It exhibits scant respect for the orders of the constitutional court, if no respect at all.
• That cannot go unscathed at our hands. Such an attitude has to be curbed by iron hands, making the contemnor to pay heavily from his pocket.
• The contemnor shall pay Rs 1 lakh to the complainant from his pocket for the criminal delay brooked in the matter within four weeks, failing which an additional sum of Rs 500 shall be payable per day’s delay for the first month and Rs 1,000 for the days following.
• It is open to the complainant to lay a challenge to the compliance order in question elsewhere in accordance with the law. In that connection, all contentions are kept open.

Pay revision plea

• The petitioner, Debasish Nayak, had earlier approached the court seeking revision of his scale of pay from the date of his joining.
• The revision was sought as per the prevailing revised judicial scale of pay, 2022 and the Rule-4 of the Odisha Consumer Protection (salary, allowances and conditions of service of president and members of the state commission and district commission) Rules, 2020.
• The court subsequently passed an order in 2024 directing the deputy secretary, food supplies and consumer welfare department, to take a decision and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law within three months.
• The court had further directed the deputy secretary to communicate the order to the petitioner within two weeks of taking the decision.
• Some rectification was sought at the hands of the bench, and that was accordingly granted.
• However, no decision was taken within the time stipulated by the coordinate bench.
• Aggrieved by inaction, the petitioner filed a complaint of contempt before the high court.
• After service of notice, the official appeared and filed the compliance affidavit stating that the subject representation has been considered to the effect that some new decision is being awaited at the hands of the government, in view of certain judgments of the Supreme Court coming in the meanwhile.
• The court, however, said that the explanation for the delay was irrelevant.