The Orissa High Court on Friday granted conditional relief to senior Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Mr. Satish Kumar Ishwardas Gajbhiye, a 2002-batch officer, who had challenged a central deputation order that would have effectively demoted him from the rank of Inspector General (IG) to Deputy Inspector General (DIG).
Also Read: DIG Magesh Kumar Reinstated as Coastal Security Group Head After Harassment Allegation Cleared
The vacation bench comprising Justices A.K. Mohapatra and M.S. Raman directed Mr. Gajbhiye to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) within 10 days, along with a certified copy of the court’s order. The High Court also instructed the tribunal to deliver its final judgment within 10 days of filing.
The matter stems from a Ministry of Home Affairs order dated December 6, 2024, which appointed Mr. Gajbhiye as DIG in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), despite his current posting as IG (Communications) in Cuttack. Following this, the Odisha government issued a notification on December 12 confirming his deputation.
Mr. Gajbhiye challenged the order after the CAT failed to deliver its verdict within the prescribed three weeks after the May 9 hearing. His counsel, senior advocate Mr. Subir Palit, cited the CAT (Practice) Rules, 1993, which mandate the pronouncement of reserved judgments within three weeks.
In his plea, Mr. Gajbhiye argued that accepting the DIG post would place him under officers junior to him, including those from the 2006-batch who currently hold IG rank in the central government. He further contended that while pay protection may be offered, it does not compensate for the loss in dignity, facilities, and command responsibilities associated with a lower designation.
The High Court also directed that if Mr. Gajbhiye approaches either the Union or the state government for a posting in alignment with his seniority and current rank, the authorities must consider his request on merit and respond within 10 days, in accordance with existing rules.
Deputy Solicitor General Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi and Additional Government Advocate Mr. U.C. Behera opposed the petition, arguing that the matter ought to have been first resolved before the CAT.
