Sanjay Prakash vs Union Of India

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13104 OF 2024

SANJAY PRAKASH & ORS. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13105 OF 2024

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13106 OF 2024

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13107 OF 2024

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13108 OF 2024 Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by KAVITA PAHUJA Date: 2025.05.23 17:53:14 IST Reason: AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13110 OF 2024

JUDGMENT

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

Substantive grievance in all the civil appeals being

identical, those were heard together and are being disposed of

by this common judgment and order.

2. All the civil appeals arise out of the common

judgment and order dated 27.07.2020 passed by the High

Court of Delhi (High Court) disposing of the following writ

petitions:

(i) W.P.(C) No. 12052 of 2019 (Tarun Kumar

Banjaree & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.);

(ii) W.P.(C) No. 12751 of 2019 (Sanjay Prakash &

Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.);

(iii) W.P.(C) No. 12875 of 2019 (Mahendra Singh Deo

Vs. Union of India & Ors.);

2

(iv) W.P.(C) No. 13014 of 2019 (Radha Mohan Meena

& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.); and

(v) W.P.(C) No. 13588 of 2019 (Sudhir Kumar Singh

and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.).

3. It may be mentioned that the above five writ

petitions were filed before the High Court by personnel

belonging to different services viz. Central Reserve Police Force

(CRPF), Border Security Force (BSF), Sashastra Seema Bal

(SSB), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and Central Industrial

Security Force (CISF), collectively known as Central Armed

Police Forces (CAPFs). In all the five writ petitions, the following

reliefs were sought:

(i) for a direction to the Union of India in respect of

each of the CAPFs to fill up all the additional posts

created pursuant to the cadre review (CR) of the year

2016 as per the existing recruitment rules which

provide for certain percentage of posts at each level

upto Senior Administrative Grade being filled up by

way of deputation;

3 (ii) for a direction to the respondents to amend the

recruitment rules of each service i.e. CAPFs by

including various attributes as required by the Office

Memorandum dated 19.11.2009 issued by the

Department of Personnel and Training, Government of

India (DoPT) read with the related Office Memoranda

dated 24.03.2009, 24.04.2009, 15.12.2009 and

08.05.2018 by providing that all posts upto Senior

Administrative Grade should be filled up by way of

promotion only and not by way of deputation;

(iii) thereafter, to conduct cadre review of Group-A

officers of each cadre by treating each service as

Organized Group-A Service (OGAS).

4. In support of the prayers made, appellants relied

upon the report of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, OM

dated 19.11.2009 of the DoPT and the decision of this Court

in Union of India Vs. Harananda1 by which the decision of the

High Court in G.J. Singh Vs. Union of India2 has been affirmed.

1 (2019) 14 SCC 126 2 2015 SCC Online Del 11803 4

5. At the outset, let us examine the report of the Sixth

Central Pay Commission which was of March, 2008. The report

indicated that mandate of the Sixth Central Pay Commission

was not only to evolve a proper pay package for the government

employees but also to make recommendations rationalizing the

governmental structure with emphasis on accountability,

responsibility and assimilation of technology etc. The Sixth

Central Pay Commission recommended that the next cadre

review exercise should take into consideration its

recommendations. The report indicated that despite

recommendations of the earlier Central Pay Commissions and

cadre reviews carried out earlier, all the services still had a

great degree of stagnation at the level of Senior Administrative

Grade. Thereafter, the Sixth Central Pay Commission made

certain recommendations to ensure service progression of

officers belonging to General Civil Services (GCS) Group-A

which are not part of any Organized Group-A Service (OGAS)

having individual recruitment rules. As a matter of fact, as per

the report of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, Group A civil

5 posts in the Central Government can be broadly categorized

into two: those classified as GCS Group A and OGAS.

6. The aforesaid recommendations of the Sixth Central

Pay Commission were accepted by the Government of India.

DoPT considered a number of representations concerning

attributes and definition of OGAS on whom the benefit of Non-

Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) was conferred. DoPT

also considered several representations by personnel

belonging to General Civil Services (GCS) Group-A claiming the

status of OGAS and conferment of the benefit of NFFU.

7. This led DoPT to issue OM dated 19.11.2009

observing that the difference between an OGAS and other

services/cadres had not been fully appreciated. Therefore, to

remove any doubt, DoPT through the said OM dated

19.11.2009 spelt out the attributes of an OGAS. Relevant

portion of the OM dated 19.11.2009 of the DoPT reads as

under:

6

(i) The highest cadre post in such services is not below the level of Rs. 37400-67000 plus Grade pay of Rs. 10000 (SAG);

(ii) Such services have all the standard grades namely, Rs. 15600-39100 plus Grade pay Rs. 5400 (JTS), Rs.

15600-39100 plus Grade pay Rs. 6600 (STS), Rs. 15600- 39100 plus Grade pay Rs. 7600/Rs. 37400-67000 plus Grade pay of Rs. 8700 (JAG/NFSG) and Rs. 37400-67000 plus Grade pay of Rs. 10000 (SAG);

(iii) At least 50% of the vacancies in Junior Time Scale (JTS) in such services are required to be filled by direct recruitment;

(iv) All the vacancies above JTS and upto SAG level in such services are filled up by promotion from the next lower grade;

(v) While a service may comprise one or more distinct cadre(s), all such cadres should be governed by composite Service Rules facilitating horizontal and vertical movement of officers of a particular cadre at least upto SAG level. The cadre posts of an Organised Service expressly belong to that service. The posts not belonging to any service are classified as General Central Service and, therefore, an Organised Group A Service cannot have posts/grades classified as General Central Service; and

(vi) Such a service consists of two distinct components, namely Regular Duty Posts and Reserves. The Reserves are generally of four types, viz. (i) Probationary Reserves,

7

(ii) Leave Reserve, (iii) Training Reserve and (iv) Deputation Reserve. The various types of reserves are usually created and accounted for in the Junior Time Scale.

Note: The existing Organised Group A Services have evolved over a period of time and may have minor deviations owing to their respective functional requirements. The services already declared as such need not, however, be reviewed.

2. The above are certain basic attributes of an Organised Group A Service. There is, however, nothing to suggest that the services/cadres fulfilling these criteria would be automatically conferred the status of an Organised Group A Service. An Organised Group A Service is one which is constituted consciously as such by the Cadre Controlling Authorities and such a service can be constituted only through the established procedures.

8. Members of the CAPFs also represented that each of

the CAPFs is an OGAS and, therefore, members of the CAPFs

were entitled to the status and benefits associated with an

OGAS including the benefit of NFFU. However, representations

of the CAPFs were rejected.

9. This led to filing of a batch of writ petitions before

the High Court. Vide the judgment and order dated 03.09.2015

8 High Court allowed the writ petitions (G.J. Singh Vs. Union of

India). Respondents were directed to issue requisite

notification granting the benefit of NFFU to the appellants

within eight weeks.

10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of

the High Court, Union of India preferred civil appeals before

this Court. Several other civil appeals were also filed by the

Union of India against similar judgments and order of the High

Court including the judgment and order dated 04.12.2012 in

Harananda Vs. Union of India3.

11. All the civil appeals came to be disposed of by this

Court vide the judgment and order dated 05.02.2019 in

Harananda (supra). There were two groups of appeals. One

group pertained to declaration of Railway Protection Force

(RPF) as an OGAS within a definite timeframe with further

direction to extend all the benefits conferred on OGAS to RPF.

The other set of appeals dealt with the grievance of CAPFs

relating to rejection of the request for grant of NFFU in respect

3 2012 SCC OnLine Del 6001

9 of which the High Court had directed the respondents to issue

requisite notification granting benefit of NFFU as

recommended by the Sixth Central Pay Commission.

11.1. Insofar the first group of appeals are concerned, this

Court examined the OM dated 20.11.2003 of the DOPT and

considered as to whether under the said OM an ‘in principle’

decision was taken for constitution of the RPF as an OGAS.

High Court had treated the said OM as an ‘in principle’

decision for constitution of the RPF as an OGAS, thereafter

directing further steps for cadre restructuring of RPF and also

to finalize the service rules with reference to the RPF as an

OGAS. This Court noted that from the judgment and order of

the High Court it was evident that the same was a consent

order. This Court further noted that it was never disputed by

any of the respondents that the OM dated 20.11.2003 was not

an ‘in principle’ decision of the DOPT for constitution of the

RPF as an OGAS. Therefore, this Court held that it was not

open to the Union of India to challenge the judgment of the

High Court whereby further direction was issued by the High

10 Court that necessary cadre structure of RPF as also the service

rules should be finalized with reference to RPF being an OGAS.

This Court affirmed the aforesaid judgment and order of the

High Court and also found that even on merits, Union of India

had no case. This Court declared that RPF was rightly treated

and considered as an OGAS and that the High Court was fully

justified in directing Union of India and others to take further

steps for cadre restructuring of the RPF and to finalize the

service rules with reference to the RPF being an OGAS.

11.2. Insofar the second group of appeals are concerned,

this Court noted that the High Court had allowed the challenge

of the appellants by quashing OM dated 28.10.2013 and the

related letters whereby their request for grant of NFFU was

rejected whereafter the High Court directed the respondents to

issue requisite notification granting the benefit of NFFU as

recommended by the Sixth Central Pay Commission to the

appellants belonging to the CAPFs.

11.3. This Court noted that the issue in the aforesaid

appeals was non-grant of NFFU to the appellants serving in

11 CRPF. NFFU was being denied solely on the ground that CRPF

is not an OGAS. According to the respondents out of the six

attributes which are required to be considered for treating

and/or considering an organization as an OGAS, CRPF did not

satisfy attributes (iv) and (vi) and also on the ground that the

Sixth Central Pay Commission did not recommend grant of

NFFU to CAPFs.

11.4. This Court examined the above controversy in the

following manner:

23.5. So far as the submission made on behalf of the appellants that CAPFs are not an Organised Group A Services as they do not satisfy two attributes out of six attributes is concerned, it is required to be noted that the OM dated 19-11-2009 specifically notes that there may be certain “minor deviations” from the attributes listed therein and also to the extent wherein it states that even if the listed criteria are fulfilled, the same would not automatically confer the status of an Organised Group A Service. Thus, as rightly observed by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order, fulfilling/compliance of the attributes shall not be given too much weightage while deciding on the status of CAPFs.

12 23.6. At this stage, it is required to be noted that while considering the case of ITBP, the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, it has been referred to in the additional affidavit of the Director, DoPT that since ITBP has no proper structure it is not possible to compare it with other Organised Services like BSF, CRPF. Thus, the Government itself has itself admitted way back on 21-10-1986 that BSF and CRPF are Organised Services and have, in fact, used them as examples of Organised Services. At the cost of repetition, it is to be noted that thereafter the Government has, through its own process, classified the BSF, CRPF and ITBP as being on a par with each other in the 1986, 1993 and 2010 Monographs, wherein the aforesaid CAPFs have been shown as a part of the same Group A Central Civil Services.

23.7. From the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court, it appears that by passing the impugned judgments and orders and holding that CAPFs are Organised Group A Central Civil Services, the High Court has considered the report of the Second Administrative Reform Committee which included in Table 4.1 a list of all Organised Group A Central Services in the Government of India in which the Paramilitary Forces such as BSF, CISF, SRPF and ITBP are shown at Sl. Nos. 22 to 25 respectively and the source at the bottom of the Table is stated to be the DoPT itself.

13 23.8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the material on record, which came to be considered by the High Court in detail, it cannot be said that CAPFs do not constitute Organised Group A Central Civil Services/Group A Central Civil Services.

11.5. Thus, this Court opined that it cannot be said that

CAPFs do not constitute OGAS. Insofar the other ground that

was urged that CRPF is denied NFFU because the Sixth

Central Pay Commission did not grant NFFU to CAPFs, this

Court held thus:

24. Now, so far as another ground on which CRPF are denied NFFU that the 6th Central Pay Commission did not grant NFFU to CAPFs is concerned, it is required to be borne in mind that the Central Pay Commission, as such, is not authorised to define “Organised Services” or to grant such status to any service. The recommendations would be made by the Central Pay Commission on the basis of the information submitted to it by the various Departments. It appears from the material on record that right from 1986 onwards, in various Monographs CAPFs were included in the list of Group A Central Civil Services. The Government took “U” turn and a stand was taken that CAPFs are not Organised Group A Central Services and, therefore, on the basis of such a stand, the Department must have

14 given the information to the Central Pay Commission and, therefore, the 6th Pay Commission did not recommend NFFU to CAPFs. Therefore, merely because the 6th Pay Commission did not recommend to grant NFFU to CAPFs — Group A Officers in PB-III and PB-IV, the Group A Officers in PB-III and PB-IV cannot be denied NFFU, which otherwise is granted to all the Officers of Group A Central Civil Services.

11.6. Therefore this Court held that merely because the

Sixth Central Pay Commission did not recommend grant of

NFFU to CAPFs, the same could not be denied.

11.7. Thereafter, this Court held that the High Court was

fully justified in directing the respondents to issue requisite

notification granting NFFU to the CAPFs and concluded as

under:

24.2. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the objects and reasons of the grant of NFFU as recommended by the 6th Pay Commission, when the High Court has observed and consequently directed that the officers in PB-III and PB-IV in the CAPFs are Organised Group A Service and, therefore, entitled to the benefits recommended by the 6th Pay Commission by way of NFFU and thereby has directed the appellants to issue

15 a requisite notification granting the benefits of NFFU as recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error which calls for the interference by this Court. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.

12. Relying on the decision in Harananda (supra) and

seeking parity with RPF, the related writ petitions were filed

before the High Court seeking the reliefs as indicated above.

High Court noted that it did not find any discussion or

consideration by this Court on the aspect of the need for

deputation at some posts in CAPFs or the qualifying term on

each level of the cadre. Therefore, High Court concluded that

Harananda (supra) was not concerned with elimination of

deputation existing in CAPFs but was concerned solely with

grant of NFFU. High Court was of the view that no direction

could be issued for restructuring of the recruitment rules of

the CAPFs by complying with attributes (iv) and (vi) of the DoPT

OM dated 19.11.2009. For this, High Court relied upon the

contention of the appellants in the earlier round of writ

petitions that notwithstanding CAPFs not fulfilling the said

16 attributes they were entitled to the benefit of NFFU. Besides

that High Court also found that there was no similarity

between RPF and other CAPFs. As such, question of

discrimination did not arise. High Court further noted that

respondents had set out numerous reasons justifying

deputation in CAPFs but appellants did not seek any relief on

that ground. Therefore, High Court refrained from adjudicating

on this issue.

12.1. High Court thereafter considered the OM dated

19.11.2009 as well as the related OMs and noted that OM

dated 19.11.2009 was not for amendment of the recruitment

rules of any service. Moreover, as per the said OM, CAPFs did

not qualify as OGAS. Referring to the decisions in G.J. Singh

(supra) and Harananda (supra), this Court observed that

members of CAPFs have been held entitled to the benefit of

NFFU. High Court held that recruitment rules of CAPFs are not

required to be amended as a consequence of the said

judgments. OM dated 15.12.2009 was in reference to the

earlier OM dated 24.03.2009 whereby guidelines were issued

17 for amendment of service rules/recruitment rules to

incorporate the changes arising out of the Sixth Central Pay

Commission recommendations including bringing uniformity

in eligibility criteria across all OGAS for promotions. Besides

directing initiation of action for amendment of service rules

qua eligibility criteria for promotion to Senior Administrative

Grade level and Higher Administrative Grade level, this Court

noted that CAPFs are being treated as OGAS but only for the

purpose of NFFU. Neither from the judgment of the High Court

in G.J. Singh (supra) nor of this Court in Harananda (supra), a

directive to declare CAPFs as OGAS for all purposes

whatsoever is discernible. Adverting to the DoPT OM dated

24.04.2009, High Court was of the view that the said OM was

also on the subject of granting NFFU to OGAS in furtherance

of the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations.

12.2. It was thereafter that the High Court considered the

DoPT OM dated 08.05.2018 which was in reference to the

earlier OM dated 31.12.2010 as per which recruitment rules

should be reviewed once in five years with a view to affecting

18 such changes as have become necessary to bring the

recruitment rules in conformity with the changed position with

further direction to immediately undertake the exercise for

review of existing service rules/recruitment rules which had

not been amended in the last five years.

12.3. Insofar challenge to cadre review is concerned, High

Court declined to enter into the said controversy because as

per the OMs dated 31.12.2010 and 08.05.2018, cadre review

is required to be carried out in every five years; the last cadre

review being carried out in the year 2016. The next cadre

review was due in the year 2021. Therefore, High Court was of

the view that all that was required to be done was to issue a

direction to the respondents for carrying out the next cadre

review in which an opportunity of hearing should be given to

the cadre officers of CAPFs. Accordingly, all the writ petitions

were disposed of in the following manner:

(I) By permitting the members of each Central Armed Police Force to, if so desire, make comprehensive representation(s) to the Ministry of Home Affairs, for amendment of the respective Recruitment Rules of

19 each Central Armed Police Force including qua Cadre Structure, Residency, Deputation etc. (II) By directing the Ministry of Home Affairs to, in compliance of the DoPT OMs dated 31st December, 2010 and 8th May, 2018, immediately undertake the exercise for review of existing Recruitment Rules of each Central Armed Police Force, also taking into consideration the representation(s), if any, received from the members of the Central Armed Police Forces and after giving them an opportunity of being heard and to place its decision in this regard before the Department of Personnel and Training.

(III) By directing the Department of Personnel and Training to, immediately on receipt of decision from the Ministry of Home Affairs qua review of Recruitment Rules of respective Central Armed Police Forces, take necessary action thereon;

(IV) By permitting the petitioners to make comprehensive representation(s) qua each Central Armed Police Force to the Department of Personnel and Training, qua the Cadre Review due in the year 2021 including as to the terms of reference if any thereof.

(V) By directing the Department of Personnel and Training to ensure timely commencement of Cadre Review exercise due in the year 2021 and to, in the terms of reference qua Cadre Review for Central Armed Police Forces, consider incorporating the representation(s), if

20 any, made by the members of each Central Armed Police Force and the decision of the Ministry of Home Affairs qua the review of Recruitment Rules of each Central Armed Police Force.

(VI) By directing that the entire exercise aforesaid be concluded on or before 30th June, 2021.

13. When the related special leave petitions were filed,

this Court vide the order dated 27.10.2020 had issued notice

and stayed the impugned directions. Thereafter, learned

Chamber Judge passed an order on 28.06.2021 granting leave

to the officers belonging to the Indian Police Service (IPS) for

being impleaded in the related batch of special leave petitions.

Vide the order dated 05.11.2024, leave was granted.

14. While appellants in Civil Appeal No. 13104 of 2024

(Sanjay Prakash and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.) are

officers belonging to Group-A executive cadre of the Central

Industrial Security Force (CISF), appellants in Civil Appeal No.

13106 of 2024 (Mahendra Singh Deo and Ors. Vs. Union of India

and Ors.) are officers belonging to the Border Security Force

(BSF). Similarly, appellants in Civil Appeal No. 13107 of 2024

21 (Tarun Kumar Banjaree and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.)

are officers belonging to the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP). Appellants in Civil Appeal No. 13105 of 2024 (Sudhir Kumar

Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.) are officers

belonging to the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB). Appellants in

Civil Appeal No. 13108 of 2024 (Radha Mohan Meena and Ors.

Vs. Union of India and Ors.) are officers belonging to the Central

Reserve Police Force (CRPF). Finally, appellants in Civil Appeal

No. 13110 of 2024 (Dr. Jyoti Prakash Sharma and Ors. Vs.

Union of India and Ors.) are serving as Assistant Commandants

in the CRPF.

15. As already noticed above, grievance of the

appellants are identical though they belong to different CAPFs.

Their grievance primarily relates to declaration and treating

the CAPFs as OGAS and thereafter to extend the benefits

available to officers belonging to OGAS like grant of NFFU,

cadre review, service rule parity by amendments of the

respective recruitment rules providing uniform promotional

avenues. Core of the grievances of the appellants as it appears,

22 are non-recognition as OGAS, non-grant of NFFU and service

stagnation. The grievance is focused on the existing

recruitment rules which provides for lateral entry into their

respective services by way of deputation to various posts by

officers belonging to the Indian Police Service (IPS), in the

process resulting in complete stagnation in their service

careers. Their contention is that once the CAPFs are declared

as OGAS for all purposes, consequential steps like cadre review

and restructuring of the service rules/recruitment rules will

follow eliminating lateral entry, like by way of deputation, to

posts upto the Senior Administrative Grade level. According to

them, because of IPS officers occupying posts upto the Senior

Administrative Grade, their promotional prospects are being

hampered leading to stagnation in the service hierarchy.

16. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel, while

opening the arguments on behalf of the appellants in Civil

Appeal No. 13104 of 2024 submitted that in Harananda

(supra), this Court has unconditionally held that Group-A

executive cadre of CISF as well as other CAPFs are OGAS. Once

23 they are declared as OGAS, all the attributes of the cadre ought

to be uniformized in the subsequent cadre review in

accordance with the OM dated 19.11.2009 which specifically

states that cadre posts of OGAS expressly belong to that

service; therefore, no deputation is allowed in such a service.

16.1. He further submits that finding of the High Court

that Group-A executive cadre of CISF and the other CAPFs are

OGAS only for the purpose of grant of NFFU is not only

erroneous but is contrary to the entire reasoning of this Court.

There is no conditional or limited finding of this Court that the

said services are to be treated as OGAS only for the purpose of

grant of NFFU. He also refers to the clarificatory order of this

Court dated 18.10.2019 holding that CAPFs as well as RPF

must be treated as OGAS.

16.2. According to him, if the view of the High Court is

accepted then it would not only mean overruling the judgment

of the High Court itself in G.J. Singh (supra) but also of this

Court in Harananda (supra). In fact, in Harananda (supra),

this Court held as follows:

24

23.8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the material on record, which came to be considered by the High Court in detail, it cannot be said that CAPFs do not constitute Organised Group A Central Civil Services/Group A Central Civil Services.

16.3. Mr. Dave, learned senior counsel, extensively

referred to the report of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and

emphasized that mandate of the Sixth Central Pay

Commission was not only to evolve a proper pay package for

the Government employees but also to make recommendations

rationalizing the governmental structure with a view to

improving the delivery mechanisms for providing better

services to the common man. On the evolution, growth and

structure of OGAS, the Sixth Central Pay Commission

observed as under:

An organised Group A Central Service represents a group of posts belonging to a distinct functional area arranged in a hierarchical order and pyramidal manner representing different grades or levels of responsibility. These responsibility increases with each senior level. At the time of the Second Central Pay Commission (CPC) in 1957, there were 6 Group A non-technical Services

25 (then called Class I Services). Over the years, more of these Services were organised to manage and run a particular Branch of the Government, or a department, which is many cases was an operative role. As a result, the officers belonging to these Services develop domain expertise in their particular branch. At the same time, as officers of these services grow in their cadres, they have to shoulder higher responsibilities relating to both policy formulation and general administration. Consequently, Organised Central Services have a very good talent pool, which has both the experience of general administration policy formulation and extensive knowledge of their area(s) of specialization.

16.4. After observing so, the Sixth Central Pay

Commission made the following recommendations:

The Commission, accordingly, recommends that the post of Additional DIG should be merged with that of DIG in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.16400-20000. Further, all posts up to the rank of DIG should, henceforth, be filled by promotion from amongst the officers of the respective CPMFs. Fifty percent of the posts in the grade of IG/equivalent and above should be allowed to be filled on deputation with the remaining posts being filled on promotion of the eligible officers.

26 16.5. Recommendations of the Pay Commission were

clear and unambiguous, he submits. All posts upto the rank

of Deputy Inspector General (DIG) should be filled up by

promotion from amongst the officers of the respective CAPFs.

Not more than 50 percent of the posts in the grade of

Inspector General (IG)/equivalent and above should be

allowed to be filled up on deputation with the remaining posts

being filled up by way of promotion from amongst the eligible

officers.

16.6. Mr. Dave submits that Government of India,

Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) had

accepted the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay

Commission on 29.08.2008 to the effect that eligibility criteria

prescribed for promotion to Senior Administrative Grade in

various Group-A services should be uniform.

16.7. He submits that once the Central Government has

made a reference to the Central Pay Commission in respect of

Government employees and it had accepted the

recommendations, then it is bound to implement the

27 recommendations in respect of all Government employees. If

it does not implement the recommendations qua certain

categories of employees then it commits a breach of Article 14

and Article 16. In support of such submission, he has referred

to and has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in

Purushottam Lal Vs. Union of India4.

16.8. Regarding the effect of an office memorandum, Mr.

Dave has referred to a decision of this Court in Laljee Dubey

Vs. Union of India5, more particularly to paragraphs 16, 17

and 18 thereof.

16.9. In this connection, he has placed reliance on various

OMs by the DoPT dated 24.03.2009, 24.04.2009, 19.11.2009

and 15.12.2009, whereby and whereunder all the Central

Government Ministries and Departments were directed to

amend the existing service rules and to grant NFFU status

with effect from 01.01.2006.

4 (1973) 1 SCC 651 5 (1974) 1 SCC 230

28 16.10. He submits that while the Ministry of Railways had

complied with the judgment of this Court qua RPF, the other

ministries have been found to be remiss in doing so.

16.11. Mr. Dave further submitted that on 12.07.2019

respondent No. 4 had issued an OM concluding as under:

The RPF and Group A Executive Cadres of the following CAPFs having been treated as Organised Group A Service (OGAS) by this Department for cadre review and other related matters accordingly:

(i) Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)

(ii) Border Security Force (BSF)

(iii) Central Industrial Security Force (CISF)

(iv) Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP)

(v) Shashstra Seema Bal (SSB)

16.12. In view of the above, first respondent is under an

obligation to implement the said OM.

16.13. Mr. Dave finally submits that it is a fit case where

all the civil appeals should be allowed and the respondents be

directed to forthwith implement the judgment of this Court in

Harananda (supra) as well as the OMs including the OMs

dated 19.11.2009 and 12.07.2019 and thereafter grant all the

29 consequential benefits to the appellants and similarly placed

officers including grant of NFFU with effect from 01.01.2006,

cadre review and amendment of the respective recruitment

rules providing for 100 percent promotion upto the level of

Senior Administrative (SAG) and 50 percent upto the level of

Higher Administrative Grade (HAG). Making an impassioned

plea, Mr. Dave submits that more than 18,000 officials of

CAPFs have been fighting this litigation and waiting for justice

since 2009. They are performing their duties in the service of

this country under most demanding and hostile conditions.

Over 153 of them have laid down their lives for defending the

unity and integrity of this country while discharging their

duties. It is unfortunate that the Central Government has

been found wanting in respect of granting relief to the

appellants as highlighted above.

17. Supporting the submissions of Mr. Dave, Mr. Shyam

Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in

Civil Appeal No. 13108 of 2024 highlighted that the

foundation of the case of the appellants is traceable to

30 paragraphs 23.4 and 23.8 of this Court’s decision in

Harananda (supra). Prayers made by the appellants are

required to be considered in the backdrop of what this Court

declared in Harananda (supra). He submits that DoPT has

fully accepted the Harananda (supra) judgment by issuing an

OM on 12.07.2019 requiring CRPF and the other four CAPFs

to be treated as OGAS for cadre issues and all other related

matters.

17.1. Unfortunately in the impugned judgment High

Court has completely ignored and made no reference to the

OM dated 12.07.2019 rendering the judgment patently

erroneous.

17.2. Despite the categorical finding of this Court and

declaration made that CAPFs are indeed OGAS and

acceptance of the same by the Union Government by way of

OM dated 12.07.2019, High Court in the impugned judgment

held that there was no general determination by this Court to

treat CAPFs as OGAS for all purposes. He submits that this

finding is wholly untenable. Such erroneous finding was the

31 fulcrum of the impugned judgment but the basis is no longer

valid in as much as Union of India has categorically

acknowledged and accepted the position that CAPFs are

indeed OGAS and in the light of the judgment in Harananda

(supra), there can be no further debate on this issue.

17.3. Learned senior counsel submits that it is the stated

policy of the Union Government that in respect of all OGAS,

promotion upto SAG level is within the service. The argument

of the respondents is that condition (iv) characteristics is

absent in the case of CRPF officers. This condition is no longer

relevant. Relevance of this condition is only at a stage anterior

to the declaration since the OM of 19.11.2009 was indicative

of certain characteristics. But now CRPF or for that matter all

the CAPFs are over that stage. Consequently all future cadre

reviews must be after the services rules are appropriately

realigned to comport with this Court’s judgment in

Harananda (supra).

18. Mr. S. Gurukrishna Kumar and Mr. K. Parameshwar,

learned senior advocates also argued on behalf of the

32 appellants. It is their submission that pursuant to the

declaration in Harananda (supra), it was incumbent on the

Union of India through its cadre controlling authority to treat

the CAPFs as OGAS. This was to be done following an exercise

of cadre review whereby the recruitment rules of the services

are amended every five years. It is further submitted that

when the RPF has been treated as OGAS, there is no reason

why the CAPFs should not be treated as OGAS. This is clearly

discriminatory. They have also highlighted the structure of

CISF as an example to illustrate as to how the service officers

are suffering stagnation due to lack of vacancies in the SAG

and above because of holding of such posts by officers

belonging to the IPS brought in by way of deputation.

19. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor

General of India representing Union of India and the official

respondents has made a subtle submission. According to her,

High Court in G.J. Singh (supra) and this Court in Harananda

(supra) had declared that CAPFs should be treated as OGAS

and consequently granted benefits arising from the

33 recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission i.e.

grant of NFFU. It was argued on behalf of Union of India that

CAPFs were not OGAS since they did not possess all the

attributes as required by the DoPT OMs. On the same

grounds, the Sixth Central Pay Commission had also not

recommended NFFU to the CAPFs. This Court declared that a

service can be an OGAS even if does not possess all the

attributes of an OGAS. Deputation of IPS officers is a minor

deviation which is allowed in terms of DoPT OM dated

19.11.2009. This Court however clarified that the decision in

Harananda (supra) will not affect the IPS

deputations/deputationists.

19.1. Learned Additional Solicitor General submits that

the above two judgments do not declare CAPFs as OGAS but

only declare that CAPFs in the past have been treated as

OGAS thus entitling them to the grant of NFFU. High Court

as well as this Court only directed the Central Government to

issue requisite notification granting the benefit of NFFU as

recommended by the Sixth Central Pay Commission to the

34 members of the CAPF. There are no further directions to take

consequential steps for making the CAPFs comply with all the

attributes of OGAS in terms of the DoPT OM dated

19.11.2009.

19.2. Turning to the impugned judgment she submits

that High Court was justified in holding that the claim of the

appellants do not flow from the said judgments. High Court is

right in holding that the appellants have failed to show that

the benefits of OGAS enures to them independent of the relied

upon judgments.

19.3. Learned Additional Solicitor General submits that

the present batch of appeals are nothing but an attempt to

reagitate the same grievance by seeking to inject the six

attributes in terms of the DoPT OM dated 19.11.2009 into the

CAPFs. The initial argument was that for declaring the CAPFs

as OGAS they did not posses all the six attributes in terms of

the OM dated 19.11.2009. In a complete u-turn, it is now

contended that since the CAPFs are OGAS they must possess

35 all the six attributes for which consequential directions

should be issued.

19.4. It is submitted that recruitment rules of each force

are formulated keeping in mind the peculiarity/functionality

of each of the services. Each of the CAPF has a different role

to play in the security scenario of the country. Functional

attributes of each of them cannot be identical. Therefore, it

does not follow from being declared as OGAS that all the

CAPFs must acquire all the six attributes.

19.5. The issue that came up for consideration in G.J.

Singh (supra) and Harananda (supra) was limited to grant of

NFFU which was initially denied on the ground that CAPFs

did not possess the six attributes required for designation as

an OGAS. It was the contention of the appellants in the

previous round that despite the deviations from the attributes

mentioned in the OM dated 19.11.2009, CAPFs had been

treated as OGAS and, as such, were entitled to grant of NFFU.

She submits that NFFU and Non-Functional Selection Grade

36 (NFSG) have been granted to all those officers who meet the

eligibility criteria.

19.6. She submits that the present batch of appeals is

premature. High Court vide the impugned judgment had

given liberty to the appellants to file representations for cadre

review which was directed to be completed by June, 2021.

However because of the stay granted by this Court on

27.07.2020, the process has been kept in abeyance.

19.7. She has also highlighted the different functional

requirements of each of CAPFs and the allowances and

benefits availed of by them which are not available to other

OGAS. Therefore, in view of the peculiarity of different

services, complete uniformity across all services may not be

feasible or even desirable. Each service cannot have an

identical cadre structure. DoPT never intended this. The cadre

controlling authority, in this case Ministry of Home Affairs, in

consultation with the DoPT and the Department of

Expenditure determines the cadre structure and manpower

planning following laid down procedure. These decisions are

37 based on an organization’s specific needs. Decisions

regarding promotional prospects, application of the

deputation norm, etc. are part of executive policy making

guided by functional, operational, organizational and

personal requirements of the CAPFs.

19.8. Ms. Bhati submits that framing/ review of

recruitment rules is a legislative function whereas cadre

review exercise is an executive function. In a policy matter as

well as in a matter within the legislative field, this Court may

not issue any mandamus.

19.9. Recruitment rules of the CAPFs have been framed

keeping in view the functional requirement of each of the

CAPFs. Being an armed force of the Union, the purpose is to

keep each of the CAPFs fit for fighting as well as to ensure

coordinated action between the States and the Centre within

the federal framework of our country. Therefore, deputation

of IPS officers is necessary. Service conditions of CAPFs

cannot be structured like civilian OGAS. In the above

backdrop, Ministry of Home Affairs had sought exemption

38 from the DoPT for OMs dated 24.04.2009, 19.11.2009 and

15.12.2009. In its reply DoPT stated that the OGAS can be

broadly classified in four different categories, each having

some common features and some unique features. It is for the

cadre controlling authority to decide what is the appropriate

structure. OMs dated 24.04.2009 and 15.12.2009 were

issued prior to CAPFs being declared as OGAS. Now, CAPF

has emerged as a fifth category of OGAS. In this case DoPT

observed that: all the attributes of an OGAS perhaps cannot

be imposed on the CAPFs, as MHA being the cadre controlling

authority in case of CAPFs, is best aware of the functional

requirements of each component services within CAPF and

accordingly create a cadre structure that is ideally suited to

perform the function and tasks for which that service has

been set up and for its administration. Therefore, DoPT

concluded that there may not be a need to grant any formal

exemption from the operation of OMs dated 24.03.2009,

24.04.2009 and 15.12.2009 in respect of CAPFs, as sought

for by the MHA.

39 19.10. She submits that CAPFs are different from other

civilian OGAS as these are forces consisting of ground troops,

deployed at various locations for different purposes like

guarding and patrolling the border, internal security, law and

order, conducting elections and performing other important

duties. These are vital for national security. These ground

troops consist mostly of lower ranks from Constables upto

Inspectors. As a matter of fact, in CRPF, 98 percent of the

force is constituted by these ranks, 1.5 percent by GD officers

and 0.5 percent are others like doctors, ministerial,

engineering, etc. IPS officers are important part of this

hierarchy. Since CAPFs are deployed in various states, IPS

officers are essential for the effective operation of CAPFs

facilitating cooperation with the concerned State

Governments and their respective police forces thus

preserving the federal structure. IPS being an all India service,

both in respect of the Union and the States, a certain number

of posts in different police organizations and other

organizations of the Central Government are filled up by IPS

40 officers allotted to various state cadres on the basis of central

deputation for a tenure. IPS officers play a crucial role while

coordinating between the Central Government and the State

Governments.

19.11. She finally submits that Ministry of Home Affairs as

the cadre controlling authority is well aware of the functional

needs and has decided to maintain the current cadre

structure of CAPFs. Any change in the present structure of

CAPFs will have far-reaching implications. She submits that

taking an overall view of the matter, the present batch of

appeals may be dismissed.

20. Submissions were made on behalf of Indian Police

Central Service Association. Learned counsel representing the

association has supported the stand taken by the learned

Additional Solicitor General. It is submitted that IPS officers

are recruited keeping in view the demands of both the Central

Government and the State Governments. Accordingly, 40

percent of the sanctioned strength of IPS in a state cadre is

earmarked for central deputation reserve offering IPS officers

41 to the Central Government to man various police and other

organizations of the Central Government on deputation. IPS

officers play an important role in the overall internal security

architecture of the country besides coordinating between the

Central Government and the State Governments when CAPFs

are deployed.

20.1. Each recruitment rules of the different CAPFs

framed under their respective statutes provide for deputation

of IPS officers. These recruitment rules are statutory in

character and cannot be overridden by administrative

guidelines like the DoPT OM. Functional and operational

requirements of CAPFs necessitate deputation of IPS officers

bringing in valuable additions to internal security and law

and order duties, besides coordination with state police

forces. This Court in Harananda (supra) explicitly clarified

that its decision did not impact the rights of IPS officers for

deputation to CAPFs.

20.2. Learned counsel has also sought to distinguish

CAPFs from RPF. The two do not stand on the same footing.

42 20.3. He, therefore, submits that all the appeals being

misconceived, should be dismissed.

21. Similar submission was made on behalf respondent

No.5 who is an IPS officer and who got himself impleaded in

the present proceeding.

22. Submissions made by learned counsel for the

parties have received the due consideration of this Court.

23. As we have seen, the genesis of the dispute, rather

grievance of the appellants, started with the recommendations of

the Sixth Central Pay Commission. We have already examined

the relevant portion of the recommendations. Commission noted

that Group-A civil posts in the Central Government can be

broadly categorized into two: firstly, those included in OGAS

and those which are not part of OGAS and hence classified as

GCS Group-A. After an exhaustive analysis of grade

evaluation, growth and structure of OGAS, Commission noted

that through the mechanism of cadre review leading to cadre

restructuring, most OGAS have got more posts created at

Senior Administrative Grade and Higher Administrative

43 Grade levels. However, it was noted that notwithstanding

such cadre reviews and restructuring of service rules, most of

the services still had a great degree of stagnation at the level

of Senior Administrative Grade and Higher Administrative

Grade. Sixth Central Pay Commission noted the disparity as

far as appointment to various grades are concerned and

recommended that in order to bring in uniformity, eligibility

criteria should be uniform across various OGAS.

24. Ministry of Finance in the Department of Expenditure,

Government of India accepted the recommendations of the Sixth

Central Pay Commission submitted on 24.03.2008. As regards

the recommendations of the Commission that whenever any

Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer of a particular batch

is posted at the centre to a particular grade carrying a specific

grade pay in the pay bands of PB-3 or PB-4, grant of higher pay

scale on non-functional basis to the officers belonging to batches

of organized Group-A services that are senior by two years or

more should be given by the Government. This recommendation

was accepted by the Government of India with the further

44 clarification that this will also be applicable to the Indian Police

Service (IPS) and the Indian Forest Service (IFS) in their

respective state cadres for which the relevant cadre

controlling authority will issue the orders.

24.1. Another recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay

Commission that eligibility criteria prescribed for promotion

to Senior Administrative Grade in various Organized Group-A

Service (OGAS) should be uniform was also accepted by the

Government of India.

25. This takes us to the OM dated 24.03.2009 of the

DoPT which was issued to carry out the recommendations of

the Sixth Central Pay Commission. By the said OM, DoPT laid

down the steps that were required to be taken to amend the

existing service rules/recruitment rules of the different

services. All the ministries/departments were requested to

effect necessary amendments to the service rules/recruitment

rules by following the laid down procedure to bring the service

rules/recruitment rules in sync with the recommendations of

the Sixth Central Pay Commission.

45

26. DoPT issued another OM dated 24.04.2009 relating

to non-functional upgradation for officers of OGAS in Pay

Band-3 and Pay Band-4 consequent upon acceptance of the

recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission.

27. Now we come to the OM dated 19.11.2009 of the

DoPT which is by way of clarification qua attributes of OGAS.

We have already extracted relevant portion of the OM dated

19.11.2009. This OM was necessitated in view of large

number of representations being received either seeking

clarification about the attributes and definition of OGAS or

seeking grant of status as OGAS and consequential benefits

flowing therefrom. Cases were filed in different courts

claiming the status of OGAS and consequential benefits.

DoPT stated that attributes of an OGAS are clearly laid down

in existing monogram of cadre management published by the

DoPT. However, as a clarificatory measure, those attributes

were restated which we have extracted in the earlier part

of the judgment. Attribute No. (iii) says that atleast 50 percent

of vacancies in the Junior Time Scale (JTS) in such

46 services are required to be filled by direct recruitment. As per

attribute No. (iv), all the vacancies above JTS and upto Senior

Administrative Grade level in such services are to be filled up

by promotion from the next lower grade. In terms of

attribute No. (v) while a service may comprise one or more

distinct grades, all such cadres should be governed by

composite service rules facilitating horizontal and vertical

movement of officers of a particular cadre atleast up to the

level of Senior Administrative Grade. The cadre posts of an

organized service (OGAS) expressly belong to that service.

Attribute No. (vi) explains that such service consists of two

distinct components viz. Regular Duty Posts and Reserves.

Reserves are generally of four types: (i) Probationary Reserve

(ii) Leave Reserve (iii) Training Reserve and (iv) Deputation

Reserve. These reserves are usually created and accounted

for in the JTS. It was clarified that existing OGAS have evolved

over a period of time and may have minor deviations owing to

their respective functional requirements. Those services

47 which have already been declared as OGAS need not be

reviewed.

28. OM dated 15.12.2009 of DoPT deals with

amendment of the service rules/recruitment rules in OGAS

pursuant to recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay

Commission. It says that Sixth Central Pay Commission had

recommended for bringing uniformity in eligibility criteria

across various Organized Group-A Services (OGAS) for

promotion. The issue was examined whereafter a decision was

taken to amend the existing service rules/recruitment rules

by incorporating the following:

1. For promotion to SAG level, the requirement shall be:

officers in the JAG with 8 years regular service in the grade including NFSG or officers with 17 years regular service in Group A posts in the service out of which atleast 4 years regular service should be in JAG (including service rendered in the NFSG of JAG). 1.1. Likewise, for promotion to HAG level, the eligibility requirement shall be:

officers in the SAG with 3 years regular service in the grade or officers with 25 years regular service in

48 Group A posts in the service out of which atleast 1 year regular service should be in the SAG.

29. OM dated 14.12.2010 deals with cadre review of

Central Group-A Services. Clause 5 (i) stipulates that every

cadre should be reviewed once in every five years. Review

should be first carried out by the cadre controlling authority

preferably in consultation with the representatives of the

services/cadre in question. Thereafter, the procedure for

cadre review is laid down.

30. This brings us to the decision of the High Court in

G.J. Singh (supra). The decision impugned in the writ

petitions was the rejection by the respondents of the request

of the petitioners belonging to CRPF, BSF and ITBP for grant

of NFFU as applicable to other Group-A officers. High Court

observed that the crux of the dispute was the classification of

the Central Government Group-A Services as organized or

otherwise and whether the officers of CAPFs are part of

Organized Group-A Services i.e. OGAS. High Court was of the

view that issue in those batch of writ petitions was not fixation

49 of pay scale but whether the Central Government had, at any

time, acknowledged or stated that such officers of CAPFs

formed a part of OGAS. High Court noted from an analysis of

the materials on record that the Central Government itself

had admitted way back on 29.10.1986 that BSF and CRPF

are organized services; rather used them as examples of

organized services. Thereafter, Central Government had

through its own process classified BSF, CRPF, ITBP and CISF

as being at par with each other in 1986, 1993 and 2010

monographs wherein the aforesaid CAPFs have been shown

as part of the same Group-A Central Civil Services. Referring

to the six attributes which the Central Group-A Services need

to possess in terms of the OM dated 19.11.2009 to be

considered as OGAS, High Court noted that as per the own

admission of the respondents, these attributes are merely

traits/characteristics and are not sacrosanct. Even the note

in the OM dated 19.11.2009 provides for minor deviations

from these attributes. Thereafter, High Court declared that

officers in PB-3 and PB-4 in the CAPFs belong to OGAS.

50 Hence, consequential benefit should be extended to them

including by way of NFFU. High Court held thus:

86. The issue of acknowledging the petitioners as OGAS has been pending for some time like a festering wound.

From the preceding discussion, the Court would note although from the government records it can clearly be seen that the Petitioners have over and over again been recognised as OGAS, an element of obfuscation has been kept alive. It cannot be overemphasised that in matters relating to the armed forces and the paramilitary/CAPFs there ought to be clarity and certainty apropos the service benefits which the forces would be entitled to. An element of greater dispatch in taking decisions governing their service conditions would always be requisite. Therefore, to the extent that the OM dated 19/20.11.2009 and OM dated 28.10.2010 themselves leave scope for interpretation, it could well be said that there is a level of arbitrariness in them. The government having repeatedly acknowledged the Petitioners in their various communications as belonging to OGAS cannot be allowed to reprobate there from.

87. In view of the above, the Court is of the view that the petitioners, i.e., officers in PB-3 and PB-4 in the CAPFs (CRPF in the present instance) have been categorised under Organised Group ‘A’ Service ever since the year 1986. Hence, the benefits contemplated by the 6th CPC by way of NFFU to remove disparity between All India

51 Services and other Organised Central Group ‘A’ Services, ought to be granted to them. Accordingly, the impugned OM dated 28.10.2010 and all other letters whereby the petitioners' request for the grant of NFFU was rejected, cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed.

88. In view of the above, the Writ Petitions are allowed. The respondents shall issue requisite notification granting the benefits of Non Functional Financial Upgradation as recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission to the Petitioners within eight weeks from this order.

31. This came to be challenged by the Union of India in

Harananda (supra). This Court formulated the issue in the

appeals as being non-grant of NFFU to officers/employees

serving in the CRPF which was denied solely on the ground

that CRPF is not an OGAS and, therefore, not entitled to

NFFU. This Court noticed that considering the materials on

record, more particularly, the monographs published by the

DoPT right from 1996 till date, CAPFs have been shown as

part of the Central Group-A Services after conducting the

exercise of cadre review etc. by the DoPT. All throughout

CAPFs have been shown to be part of Central Group-A

52 Services. Therefore, it was not open to the DoPT not to

consider and/or treat the CAPFs as Organised Group-A

Services. This Court concluded that it cannot be said that

CAPFs do not constitute OGAS. Paragraphs 23.4 and 23.8,

being the fulcrum of the appellants case, are extracted

hereunder:

23.4. Considering the material on record, more particularly, the Monographs published by the DoPT right from 1986 till date, CAPFs have been shown to be a part of the Central Group A Services. CAPFs have been shown as a part of the Central Group A Services after conducting the exercise of cadre review, etc. by the DoPT.

Therefore, all throughout from 1986 till date, in the Monographs published by the DoPT, CAPFs have been shown to be a part of Central Group A Services. Therefore, thereafter it would not be open for the DoPT not to consider and/or treat the CAPFs as an Organised Group A Services.

* * * * * *

23.8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the material on record, which came to be considered by the High Court in detail, it cannot be said that CAPFs do not constitute Organised Group A Central Civil Services/Group A Central Civil Services.

53 31.1. In paragraph 24.2 of Harananda (supra), this Court

held that High Court was right in observing and consequently

directing that officers in PB-3 and PB-4 in the CAPFs belong

to OGAS and, therefore, entitled to the benefits recommended

by the Sixth Central Pay Commission by way of NFFU, further

directing the respondents to issue requisite notification

granting NFFU to such officers of the CAPFs as recommended

by the Sixth Central Pay Commission. This Court declared

that it was in complete agreement with the view taken by the

High Court.

32. From the above, what is discernible is that

immediate grievance of the appellants in the aforesaid batch

of civil appeals was the rejection of their claim to NFFU, the

basis of such rejection being refusal of the Central

Government to treat the CAPFs as belonging to OGAS.

However, this Court while framing the issue for consideration

went to the root of the dispute and declared that for all intent

and purposes, CAPFs belong to OGAS. From a careful reading

of the judgment of this Court in Harananda (supra), we have

54 no doubt in our mind that such declaration by this Court was

not confined only to the grant of NFFU but in respect of the

status of the CAPFs as OGAS.

33. Following the same, DoPT issued OM dated

26.03.2019 calling upon the cadre controlling authorities for

the RPF and CAPF i.e. Ministry of Railways and Ministry of

Home Affairs respectively to send detailed modalities on all

issues/directions as per the decision of this Court in

Harananda (supra) in the matter of organized status and

consequential benefit of NFFU to enable implementation at

the earliest.

34. In this proceeding, we are not concerned with the

OM dated 08.04.2019 dealing with RPF. Nonetheless, it may

be mentioned that vide the said OM dated 08.04.2019 of the

Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, judgment of this Court

in Harananda (supra) has been implemented by taking the

relevant steps, such as, notifying RPF as OGAS, restructuring

of RPF cadre and to revise the recruitment rules of RPF in

55 consultation with the Union Public Service Commission

(UPSC). This was followed by OM dated 12.04.2019.

35. However, what is of crucial significance is the OMs

dated 04.07.2019 and 12.07.2019 of DoPT. Subject-matter of

OM dated 04.07.2019 is grant of benefit of NFFU and Non-

Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) to Group-A executive

cadre officers of CAPFs considered by the courts as belonging

to OGAS. The said OM mentioned that approval of

the competent authority has been conveyed to the grant of

OGAS to Group-A executive cadre officers of CAPFs and

consequently benefits of NFFU w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and NFSG

at the rate of 30% of Senior Duty Posts (SDP) w.e.f.

06.06.2000. Director Generals of CAPFs were therefore

directed to extend the benefits of NFFU and NFSG to the

eligible Group-A executive cadre officers of CAPFs by taking

immediate necessary action for implementation.

36. By way of the OM dated 12.07.2019, it was stated

that Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Railways vide

their respective letters dated 04.07.2019 and 11.07.2019 had

56 conveyed the approval of the competent authority to grant of

OGAS status to Group-A executive cadre officers of

CAPFs and RPF and consequential benefits of NFFU w.e.f.

01.01.2006 and NFSG @ 30% to Senior Duty Posts (SDP)

w.e.f. 06.06.2000 respectively. Further, it has been

mentioned that RPF and Group-A executive cadres of the

CAPFs have been treated as OGAS by the DoPT for cadre

review and other related matters. Relevant portion of the OM

dated 12.07.2019 reads as under:

2. In compliance of the above mentioned judgment dated 5.2.2019 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Railways vide their references cited above, have conveyed the approval of the competent authority to grant of OGAS status to RPF and to Group A Executive Cadre Officers of CAPFs and consequential benefits of NFFU with effect from 1.1.2006 and NFSG at 30% of Senior Duty Post (SDP) with effect from 6.6.2000 respectively.

3. The RPF and Group A Executive Cadres of the following CAPFs having been treated as Organised Group A service (OGAS) by this Department for cadre review and other related matters accordingly.

(i) Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) (ii) Border Security Force (BSF)

57

(iii) Central Industrial Security Force (CISF)

(iv) Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP)

(v) Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB)

37. After issuance of OM dated 12.07.2019 treating the

CAPFs as OGAS for cadre review and other related matters,

the scope of the dispute has considerably narrowed down;

rather, we can say that there is hardly any dispute left now

for adjudication. Unfortunately, this OM dated 12.07.2019

was not taken note of by the High Court while disposing of the

related writ petitions filed by the appellants vide the

impugned judgment dated 27.07.2020. High Court had

rendered its judgment one year after the OM dated

12.07.2019 was issued. Failure to consider this OM has

materially affected the adjudication by the High Court.

38. Now that the scope of the lis has considerably

narrowed down, it will be useful to highlight the grievances

expressed by the appellants all this while. Since we have

focused primarily on Civil Appeal No.13104 of 2024 (Sanjay

Prakash and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.) which in turn is

concerned with CISF, we may have a glance at the posts in

58 the CISF in terms of hierarchy which is produced below in the

form of a statement:

Grades CORRESPONDING RANKS IN CISF OTHER CAPFs Apex Grade Director General (DG) Higher Administrative Additional Director General Grade (ADG) (HAG) Senior Administrative Inspector General Grade (IG) (SAG) Super Time Scale Deputy Inspector General (DIG) Junior Administrative Senior Commandant Grade Commandant (NFSG) Junior Administrative Commandant Second in Command Grade (2IC) (JAG) Senior Time Scale Deputy Commandant (STS) (DC) Junior Time Scale Assistant Commandant (JTS) (AC)

39. Thus, we find that in the Junior Time Scale is the

post of Assistant Commandant; Deputy Commandant is in

the grade of Senior Time Scale. Commandant and Senior

Commandant are included in Junior Administrative Grade

with Senior Commandant being granted NFSG. Deputy

59 Inspector General (DIG) is placed in the Super Time Scale

Grade, whereas Inspector General (IG) is placed in the Senior

Administrative Grade (SAG). Therefore, posts upto Inspector

General are at the level of SAG or below. Additional Director

General (ADG) is placed in the Higher Administrative Grade

(HAG). The topmost post is Director General (DG).

40. According to the appellants, the existing Group-A

executive cadre of CISF mirrors a pyramid with fewer posts at

the top of the hierarchy in comparison to the number of posts

at the bottom. But the grievance is that the senior posts are

filled up mostly by way of deputation from amongst officers

belonging to the IPS. As one moves up in the hierarchy,

number of deputation posts in Group-A executive cadre

increases. In other words, it is the case of the appellants that

number of posts and the percentage of deputation are

inversely proportional. In this respect, appellants have placed

the following chart in tabular form depicting the cadre

structure and how the cadre posts are filled up:

60

Rank Total Division of Group A Executive Cadre posts positions As percentage Numbers Deputation Cadre Deputation Cadre DG 1 100% Excluded 1 0 ADG 4 75% 25% 3 1 IG 16 50% 50% 8 8 DIG 67 30% 70% 20 47 Sr. 81 Promotion failing which by NIL 81 Commandant deputation Commandant 125 NIL 125 Deputy 344 2% 98% NIL 344 Commandant absorption failing which by promotion Assistant 639 2% absorption 98% NIL 639 Commandant failing which by promotion

41. Appellants have stated that their grievance qua

stagnation in service in contrast to the upward mobility of the

deputationists, being IPS officers who have far more lenient

and relaxed eligibility criteria for appointment in Group-A

executive cadre, has been taken note of by this Court in

Harananda (supra). Appellants have depicted the grievance

by way of a chart highlighting the differential requirement of

residency period for promotion and appointment against a

cadre post for cadre officers vis-a-vis deputationists. The

chart is as under:

61

Promotion Total qualifying Central Deputation service (in years) for IPS required for promotion in From To CISF as per Level Minimum existing RRs length of (GCS Group A) service in the IPS for eligibility for central deputation ADG DG Excluded DG 30 IG ADG 30 ADG 26 DIG IG 24 IG 18 Senior DIG 20 DIG 14 Commandant Commandant Senior 15* Commandant SP 7 DC Commandant 11 AC DC 06 - -

42. Appellants have also illustrated their service

stagnation due to lack of vacancies by highlighting the same

in a tabular format which is as under:

Rank Total Cadre No. of officers eligible for Positions promotion to the rank in Column (1) (2) (1) but stagnating due to lack of vacancies, eligibility reckoned under existing recruitment rules From the next Based on lower rank years of service DG 0 1. Rules for promotion to the rank of DG yet to be framed.

62 2. Eligible CISF officer not promoted to the rank of ADG though vacancy exists ADG 1 8 13 IG 8 59 72 DIG 47 52 53 Sr. 81 21 21 Commandant Total Officers stagnating from 140 Batches 1987 – 2005 Total Cadre Officers from 153 Batches 1987 – 2005

43. Now that the Central Government has accepted that

CAPFs are included in OGAS, the natural consequences

should follow. Eligible officers belonging to the CAPFs have

already been granted NFFU following the decision of this

Court in Harananda (supra). DoPT OM dated 12.07.2019

makes it abundantly clear that the CAPFs have been treated

as OGAS for cadre issues and all other related matters. In

other words, CAPFs are OGAS for all purposes. When CAPFs

have been declared as OGAS, all benefits available to OGAS

should naturally flow to the CAPFs. It cannot be that they are

granted one benefit and denied the other.

44. However, we are conscious of the fact that the role

of CAPFs is crucial while maintaining security at the borders

63 of our country as well as in discharging internal security

duties. There are various issues connected with the

deployment of CAPFs, including coordinating with the State

Governments and the state police force. Central Government

in its wisdom has taken the view that presence of IPS officers

in each of the CAPFs is vital to maintain the character of each

of the CAPFs as a unique central armed force. This is a policy

decision. Of course, individual officers belonging to the IPS or

the association of IPS officers cannot have a say as to how

much the deputation quota should be and how long the

deputation should continue. They are there on deputation by

virtue of the policy decision of the Central Government

manifest through the service rules/recruitment rules of the

CAPFs. Having said that we cannot also be oblivious of the

grievance expressed by officers of the CAPFs as highlighted

supra. Their dedicated service upholding the security,

integrity and sovereignty of the nation while safeguarding our

borders and maintaining internal security within the country

cannot be ignored or overlooked. They discharge their duties

64 under very demanding conditions. They have a grievance that

because of lateral entry into the higher grades of the

respective CAPFs, they are unable to get their timely

promotion. Consequently, there is a great deal of stagnation.

Such stagnation can adversely impact the morale of the

forces. This also needs to be factored in while considering

review of such policy decision.

45. Having regard to the discussions made above and

now that Government of India has accepted the CAPFs as

belonging to OGAS vide the DoPT OM dated 12.07.2019, we

are of the view that the following directions would meet the

ends of justice. We, accordingly, order as follows:

1. Let the cadre review in all the CAPFs which

was due in the year 2021 be carried out within a

period of six months from today.

2. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India

shall give effect to the DoPT OM dated 12.07.2019

and undertake the exercise for review of the existing

service rules/recruitment rules of each of the CAPFs.

65 While carrying out the aforesaid exercise,

representative of the cadre officers of each of the

CAPFs shall be given an opportunity of being heard.

3. Let the above exercise pertaining to review

of existing service rules/recruitment rules of each of

the CAPFs be carried out and completed within a

period of six months from today.

4. DoPT shall take appropriate decision after

receipt of action taken report(s) from the Ministry of

Home Affairs regarding cadre review and review of

existing service rules/recruitment rules within a

period of three months from the date of receipt of

such report(s).

5. Keeping in mind the twin objectives of service

mobility of the cadre officers of CAPF thereby

removing stagnation on the one hand and the

operational/functional requirement of the forces on

the other hand, we are of the view that the number of

posts earmarked for deputation in the cadres of the

66 CAPFs upto the level of Senior Administrative Grade

(SAG) should be progressively reduced over a period

of time, say within an outer limit of two years.

6. This will bring in a sense of participation of

the cadre officers belonging to the CAPFs in the

decision making process within the administrative

framework of the CAPFs thereby removing the long

standing grievances of the cadre officers.

46. In view of the above, interim stay granted by this

Court on the exercise of cadre review stands recalled.

47. All the civil appeals are accordingly disposed of in

the above terms. However, there shall be no order as to cost.

……………………………J. [ABHAY S. OKA]

……………………………J. [UJJAL BHUYAN] NEW DELHI;

MAY 23, 2025.

67