The Uttarakhand High Court has directed senior Indian Police Service (IPS) officers Neeru Garg and Arun Mohan Joshi to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to challenge their recent deputation to central forces. The officers, who currently serve as Inspectors General (IG) in the Uttarakhand Police, had moved the High Court alleging that they were being forcibly transferred to central posts that are lower in rank than their current positions.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay issued the directive after the state government raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petition.
The legal challenge arose after the Union Ministry of Home Affairs issued orders posting Neeru Garg (2005-batch) as Deputy Inspector General (DIG) in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and Arun Mohan Joshi (2006-batch) as DIG in the Border Security Force (BSF).
Both officers are currently holding the rank of Inspector General (IG) in Uttarakhand. In their petition, they argued that the central deputation was being executed against their will and without their consent. They further highlighted that the move would result in a professional demotion, as they were being assigned to DIG-level posts despite their higher seniority in the state cadre.
The petitioners stated that they had at no point applied for or consented to a central deputation. They informed the court that they had previously expressed their reluctance to move to central forces and had even been granted an exemption from such deputation for a period of five years.
Despite this history, the Uttarakhand state government forwarded their names to the Centre on February 16. The officers contended that this action, followed by the Centre’s subsequent posting orders, amounted to a forced transfer to a lower rank.
During the hearing, the state government argued that under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the High Court was not the appropriate initial forum for such service-related grievances. The state maintained that the petition was not maintainable and that the officers should instead seek relief through the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Conceding to the jurisdictional requirement, the petitioners withdrew their plea from the High Court. The bench subsequently directed them to approach the CAT for the adjudication of their grievances regarding the deputation orders.
