In a significant development, the Orissa High Court has granted interim relief to senior IPS officer Satish Kumar Ishwardas Gajbhiye (2002 batch), who had challenged his central deputation order that would have effectively reduced his rank from Inspector General (IG) to Deputy Inspector General (DIG).
On Friday, a 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 High Court’s order. Furthermore, the court instructed CAT to issue a final judgment within 10 days of receiving the plea.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose from a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) order dated 6 December 2024, which assigned Mr. Gajbhiye the role of DIG in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). This was despite his existing posting as Inspector General (Communications) in Cuttack. The Odisha government subsequently confirmed his deputation via a notification issued on 12 December 2024.
Mr. Gajbhiye challenged the deputation, arguing that the downgrade in designation would place him under the authority of junior officers, including some from the 2006 batch currently serving as IGs in central agencies. While acknowledging that his salary would remain protected, he contended that the proposed role would diminish his dignity, privileges, and command responsibilities.
Court’s Additional Directions
The High Court also ruled that if Mr. Gajbhiye submits a formal request to the Union or State Government for a posting that reflects his current seniority and rank, the authorities must consider the request on merit and respond within 10 days, as per existing service rules.
Legal Arguments and Representation
Mr. Gajbhiye was represented by Senior Advocate Subir Palit, who emphasized that the CAT had not delivered its verdict within the mandatory three-week window after the 9 May 2025 hearing—violating the CAT (Practice) Rules, 1993.
Meanwhile, the petition was opposed by Deputy Solicitor General Prasanna Kumar Parhi and Additional Government Advocate U.C. Behera, who contended that the matter should have first been resolved before CAT before approaching the High Court.
