Union Of India vs Shri Harananda

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1474/2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) NO. 12393 of 2013)

Union of India & Ors. ….. …Appellants

Versus

Sri Harananda & Ors. ………Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1475­81 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 35548­35554/2015), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1482 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 13937/2016), SLP (C) ……………CC No. 5735/2016 SLP (C) ……………CC No. 5736/2016 SLP (C) ……………CC No. 5737/2016 SLP (C) ……………CC No. 5738/2016 SLP (C) ……………CC No. 5743/2016 SLP (C) ……………CC No. 5742/2016 SLP (C) ……………CC No. 5740/2016

JUDGMENT

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions (C) No.12393/2013,

35548­35554/2015 and 13937/2016. All these appeals are being Signature Not Verified

disposed of by this common judgment.

Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR RAKHEJA Date: 2019.02.05 17:42:09 IST Reason: 2

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order dated 4.12.2012 passed by the High Court of

Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 6314 of 2012, the Union of India

and others have preferred the Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.

12393/2013.

2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi dated

3.9.2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 153 of 2013 and other allied writ

petitions, the Union of India and others have preferred the

present Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos.35548­35554/2015.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi dated

15.12.2015 in Writ Petition(C) No.3529/2015, the Union of India

and others have preferred the present Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)

No.13937/2016.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12393 of 2013

3. The facts leading to the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C)

No. 12393 of 2013 arising out of the impugned judgment and

order passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 4.12.2012 in Writ

Petition (C) No. 6314 of 2012, are as under.

3

3.1 The original Writ Petitioners – who are the RPF Officers

holding Group “A” posts approached the High Court by filing the

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with

the following reliefs/prayers:

(a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents

to complete the formalities for constituting the RPF as an

Organized Service within a definite time frame with further

direction to extend the benefits by giving effect to the RPF

Recruitment Rules already approved by the Respondent No.

1 as communicated vide letter dated 01.03.2005 to

Respondent No. 2 and to treat Group “A” Railway Officers

recruited through Civil Service Examination in all respect.

(b) Issue further direction to the Respondents to apply

with retrospective effect all policy circulars to the petitioners

as applicable in respect of other Group A Railway Services

bringing them at par with their batch mates recruited

through civil service examinations and grant promotion to

the Petitioners and other similarly situated officers on that

basis with all co­sequential benefits including the back

wages.

4

(c) Issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records, and

other/direction (including those not communication to the

Petitioner, if any, by way of which the Respondents have

taken a decision to initiate the process to fill any vacancy in

the RPF through deputation against the statutory provisions

and thereafter quash the same.

3.2 It was the case on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners that

all the writ petitioners are the Officers holding Group “A” posts in

the Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred as to the ‘RPF’)

and all of them were recruited through the Civil Services

Examination conducted by the UPSC along with 15 other Group

“A” Central Services, including three Group “A” Railways

Services, i.e. Indian Railway Traffic Service, Indian Railway

Accounts Service and Indian Railway Personnel Service.

According to the Writ Petitioners, as per the Gazette Notification

published by the Government of India, based on which the UPSC

conducts an examination, these Railway services have been kept

at par with each other. According to the original Writ Petitioners,

the notification and the offer of appointment as well as the 5 Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (for short ‘the RPF Act, 1957’)

clearly stipulate the Officers of RPF as Railway Servants with

stipulation that in addition to the Indian Railway Establishment

Code applicable to the Railway servants, the Officers of RPF will

be governed by the provisions contained in the RPF Act and RPF

Rules, 1959 as well as the new RPF Rules, 1987, Recruitment

Rules 1981 and 1994.

3.3 It was the case on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners that

in spite of the consistent stand taken by the Ministry of Railways

that the officers of the RPF have all the attributes of Organized

Service and they should be constituted as Organized Service, the

original Respondent No. 1 – Union of India through Ministry of

Railways and Department of Personnel and Training (Cadre

Review Division) [for short ‘DoPT’], for one reason or the other,

have taken a final decision in this respect resulting in large scale

stagnation of the officers of RPF, like the Writ Petitioners, at every

rank.

3.4 It was the case on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners

that, starting from 1981 to 1996, various amendments were

brought out in the RPF Act as well as the Rules by which initially

the proportion of deputation was reduced and finally by 6

amendment in the Recruitment Rule, RPF Rules and by bringing

in amendment in the Principle Act, 1957, by Section 19 of the

Amendment Act, 1985, deputation was debarred by giving only

two options to the existing officers on deputation either

repatriation in their parent cadre or to accept retirement.

3.5 According to the original Writ Petitioners, “in principle”

decision taken by the Railway Board in the year 1986 to

constitute RPF as an Organized Service and referred the matter

to the DoPT (Cadre Review Division) for its approval. According

to the original Writ Petitioners, thereafter, through O.M. dated

12.7.2001, the Ministry of Railways forwarded the proposal for

deeming the RPF as an Organized Service to be known as the

Indian Railway Protection Force Service. According to the

original Writ Petitioners, thereafter, the DoPT (Cadre Review

Division) considering all aspects, by Communication dated

20.11.2003, communicated in principle approval to constitute

RPF as Organized Group “A” Central Service (for short ‘OGACs’).

According to the original Writ Petitioners, thereafter, the Ministry

of Railways, vide Communication dated 1.3.2005, forwarded the

draft Recruitment Rules for Indian Railway Protection Force

Service on the lines of other Organized Group “A” Central 7

Services of Railways after due approval of the Ministry of

Railways being the competent authority. According to the

original Writ Petitioners, thereafter, during 2005­2010, various

steps were taken for bringing necessary changes to improve the

service condition of the RPF officers and to bring them at par

with other Railway Services, but the same did not result in any

meaningful solution, as a result of the same, the RPF officers like

the Writ Petitioners kept on stagnating in the same post and

suffered.

3.6 According to the original Writ Petitioners, several meetings

were held by the Railway Board to resolve the issue, but no

effective steps were taken and the original Respondents

continued to fill the vacancies available with them by calling the

officers on deputation, even when the eligible officers were

available and in spite of the statutory prohibition in force.

Therefore, the original Writ Petitioners approached the High

Court and prayed for the aforesaid reliefs.

3.7 That by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court,

after having noted and considered the O.M. dated 20.11.2003, by

which in principle decision was taken to constitute the RPF as

OGACs, has directed that within six months the necessary cadre 8

structure of RPF as also the Service Rules be finalized with

reference to the RPF being an OGACs. The High Court has also

further observed and directed the Cabinet Secretary to nominate

a Nodal Officer to coordinate within the three bodies, namely,

UPSC, DoPT and Ministry of Railways.

3.8 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the direction

contained in the impugned judgment and order dated 4.12.2012,

the Union of India and others have preferred the present Appeal.

4. Shri Aman Lekhi, learned ASG has appeared on behalf of

the Union of India, Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel has

appeared on behalf of the Respondents – original Writ Petitioners

and Shri Luthra, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the

Indian Police Service Central Association.

4.1 Shri Lekhi, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Union of

India has vehemently submitted that the High Court has

materially erred in issuing the Mandamus relying on the “in

principle” approval granted by the DoPT for constituting the RPF

as OGACs in its O.M. dated 20.11.2003. It is vehemently

submitted that the findings arrived at by the High Court that the

“in principle” approval was granted by the DoPT, is clearly

erroneous as the same O.M. specifically stipulated in paragraph 9

2 that the proposal will have to be placed before the Cadre Review

Committee for its approval just like a normal cadre review

proposal for further processing by DoPT.

4.2 It is further submitted that even the said proposal was also

based upon a clearly erroneous O.M. dated 12.7.2001 by the

Ministry of Railways, in which it was wrongly stated that

“Administration/Administrative Grade are filled by promotion

from next lower grade” in RPF. Shri Lekhi, learned ASG has

brought the attention of this Court to various grades and their

corresponding posts. It is submitted that there are various

grades, such as, (1) Higher Administrative Grade; (2) Senior

Administrative Grade; (3) Junior Administrative Grade; (4) Senior

Time Scale and (5) Junior Time Scale. It is submitted that

Attribute of the Monograph of 1993 required that all posts from

Junior Time Scale to Senior Administrative Grade level should be

filled by promotion. It is submitted that the same is not satisfied

by RPF as there is a provision for deputation at the posts of DIG

and IG.

4.3 It is further submitted by Shri Lekhi, learned ASG that the

Cadre Review Committee, in its meeting dated 2.3.20087, in fact

referred the matter to Committee of Secretaries on Cadre Review 10

on the proposal of RPF. It is submitted that the Committee of

Secretaries, vide its meeting dated 5.9.2007 decided to deal with

the two issues of cadre review of RPF and granting status of

OGACs to RPF. It is submitted that in the Minutes of the

Meeting, it was specifically stated that the Secretary, DoPT will

consult the Chairman, Railway Board. It is submitted that,

therefore, the constitution of RPF as OGACs was specifically not

granted. It is submitted that, pursuant thereto, on 30.11.2007,

DoPT had requested the Railway Board to send a revised cadre

review proposal to address the aspect of promotional avenues

and on constitution of RPF as OGACs. It is submitted that,

thereafter, the proposal was forwarded by the Ministry of

Railways on 7.3.2013 and the same was examined in

consultation with the Department of Expenditure. It is submitted

that the proposal was then considered by the Cadre Review

Committee on 29.7.2013 and the Committee did not recommend

OGACs status in view of the recommendations of 6 th CPC and the

concerns expressed by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

4.4 It is further submitted that, in any event, the RPF did not

satisfy Attribute (iv) of Monograph of 1993 or the O.M. dated

19/20.11.2009. It is submitted that neither Monograph of 1993 11

nor O.M. dated 19/20.11.2009 was challenged by the Writ

Petitioners. It is submitted that, therefore, consequently, in the

absence of RPF satisfying the above Attribute, there was no

occasion for the High Court to issue Mandamus for grant of

status of OGACs.

5. It is further submitted by Shri Lekhi, learned ASG that even

the reliance placed on the draft Service Rules forwarded vide

O.M. dated 1.3.2005 is clearly erroneous inasmuch as the High

Court ignored the meeting of CRC and COS, DoPT

Communication of 13.11.2007 and the CRC Meeting of 29.7.2013

apart from the Recruitment Rules and the attributes of OGACs.

5.1 It is submitted that, therefore, while the foundational facts

for grant of relief have not been satisfied, the right itself in RPF

was not established and, therefore, there was no occasion for the

enforcement of the same through the Writ of Mandamus.

5.2 It is further submitted by Shri Lekhi, learned ASG that the

High Court could not have been able to create OGACs on the

basis of certain notes, correspondence and the letters issued by

the DoPT, Government of India, for it is the Home Department

which has the jurisdiction/authority under the RPF Act, 1957

and other relevant Laws. In support of his submission that 12

Ministry of Home Affairs is the only competent authority to

determine the grant of OGACs, Shri Lekhi, learned ASG has

relied upon Section 8 of the RPF Act, 1957. Relying upon Section

3 and Section 8 of the RPF Act, it is submitted that once the RPF

is an Armed Force of the Union, any decision that has to be

taken, is required to be taken by the Home Department and,

ultimately, it has to travel through the Cabinet for its acceptance

and notification.

5.3 It is further submitted by Shri Lekhi, learned ASG and Shri

Luthra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the IPS

Association that even there are statutory rules under the RPF

Act, 1957 which provides for deputation into RPF. Reliance was

placed upon Rules 54 and 76 of the RPF Rules. It is submitted

that if the cadre to which the original Writ Petitioners belong is

declared as OGACs, then there cannot be any deputation and no

one from the cadre of IPS can come on deputation and it is likely

to give parallel two system within the force establishment.

5.4 It is further submitted by the learned ASG and Shri Luthra

that, thus, there is a statutory provision for deputation from IPS

as provided under the RPF Rules. It is submitted that an IPS is

an All India Service under Article 312 of the Constitution and is 13

deemed to be “necessary and expedient in the national interest”

under Article 312 (2). It is submitted that this service is common

to the Union and States and is therefore peculiarly suited for

Armed Forces of the Union, which though created by the Centre,

can be yet made available in aid of civil power of State despite

“Public Order” being State subject. It is submitted that,

therefore, the scheme is consistent within the framework

conceived by the Constitution, apparent in Article 312 and Entry

2A of the Union List and Entries 1 and 2 of the State List. It is

further submitted by the learned ASG that the security of the

railway property is integral to the maintenance of public order

considering the importance of the network in ensuring

connectivity and removing isolation as also providing a cheap and

convenient mode of transport apart from having a role in

development of agriculture and industry. It is submitted that

RPF cannot, therefore, be treated any different from CAPFs.

5.5 Relying upon Rule 106 of IREC, it is submitted that the

railway service is classified as the gazetted and non­gazetted. It

is submitted that Rule 108 provides for establishments and

categories falling under the services mentioned in Rule 106. It is

submitted that a combined reading of the two rules make it 14

apparent that the RPF is not included in the list of Railway

Service. In support of the above submission, he has also relied

upon Rule 103(43) of IREC. It is submitted that, therefore, the

DoPT cannot be excluded altogether from the affairs of RPF.

5.6 It is further submitted that in fact the deputation to the

RPF, being members of All India Services, cannot be under the

administrative control of the Railway Board. It is submitted that

the Second Schedule of the Allocation of Business Rules itself

stipulates under Item 42(a) that the general policy questions of

career planning and manpower planning of the All India Services

and Central Government Services is the subject matter of DoPT.

By virtue of the same, DoPT functions as the Secretariat for the

Cadre Review Committee which is chaired by the Cabinet

Secretary. It is submitted that, therefore, neither the DoPT be

kept out of the affair of RPF nor can the Ministry of Railways

claim exclusive control over the affairs of the RPF.

5.7 Making the above submissions, it is submitted that as there

was no enforceable right in favour of the original Writ Petitioners,

more particularly, in the absence of any final approval of the

DoPT and/or Ministry of Home Affairs, the High Court is not

justified in issuing the Mandamus. In support of the above, Shri 15

Lekhi, learned ASG has relied upon the decision of this Court in

the case of State of Kerala v. Lakshmikutty (1986) 4 SCC 632.

5.8 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above

decision of this Court, it is prayed to quash and set aside the

impugned judgment and order dated 4.12.2012 passed by the

High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 6314 of 2012.

6. The present Appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Patwalia,

learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the original Writ

Petitioners. It is vehemently submitted by him that, as such, the

present Appeal is not maintainable at all as the same is against

the impugned judgment and order which is a consent order

passed by the High Court only after counsel of the parties agreed

that the High Court can dispose of the matter by issuing

necessary directions. It is submitted that, therefore, after counsel

of the parties including counsel for Appellant no. 2 have agreed

for issuance of direction and, thereafter, when the High Court

has disposed of the writ petition in terms of the agreement, then

the appeal is not maintainable.

6.1 It is further submitted by the learned Senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners that even the

present Appeal at the instance of the Ministry of Home Affairs is 16

not maintainable inasmuch as the Ministry of Home Affairs is

neither a necessary party nor was a party before the High Court.

It is submitted that the Union of India which was represented

through the Ministry of Railways has not challenged the

judgment and order of the High Court and the Ministry of Homer

Affairs is a complete stranger and has no locus standi to

challenge the order of the Division Bench of the High Court.

6.2 It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners that the

Ministry of Home Affairs is not at all concerned with the Group

‘A’ Cadre of RPF inasmuch as in terms of Government of India

(Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, Ministry of Railways is

empowered to deal with all matters of Railways, including RPF. It

is submitted that the aforesaid Rules would show the list of

Police Organizations which are part of allocation of business of

Ministry of Home Affairs. It is submitted that the list does not

contain the name of RPF to whom the original Writ Petitioners

belong. It is submitted that even the Ministry of Railways has

accepted the impugned judgment and order and, in fact, has also

taken steps to implement the impugned directions. It is further

submitted that the decision of the High Court, which is in 17

consonance with the statutory Rules and equitable, has been

accepted by the Ministry of Railways, which is a Cadre

Controlling Ministry.

6.3 It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners that, even

otherwise, on merits also, the impugned judgment and order

passed by the High Court is not required to be interfered by this

Court. It is submitted that after careful consideration ‘in

principle’ decision was taken by the Ministry of Railways to

consider and treat the RPF as OGACs and the High Court has

committed no error in issuing the directions, more particularly,

when for number of years, no final decision/approval was taken

and the original Writ Petitioners and the members of RPF

suffered.

6.4 Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the original

Writ Petitioners has drawn our attention to the report filed by the

Second Administrative Reforms Commission submitted in the

year 2008. It is submitted that the said Commission after writing

a Preface on the various aspects has emphasised on the need for

reforms. It is submitted that the said report states about a table

which incorporates all the Organized Group “A” Central Civil 18

Services in the Government of India. It is submitted that in Item

Nos. 15, 22, 23, 24 and 25, the services which find places are

RPF, Boarder Security Force, Central Industrial Security Force,

Central Reserve Police Force and the Indo­Tibetan Border Police

respectively. It is submitted that the said list was drawn having

its source from DoPT.

6.5 Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the original

Writ Petitioners has also drawn our attention to the cadre review

of Group “A” Central Civil Services done by the Government of

India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,

DoPT in 2010. It is submitted that detailed deliberations were

held with the Cadre Controlling Authorities to identify areas that

need to be improved upon while conducting cadre reviews and,

based on the discussions, guidelines came to be revised and a

new Monograph on Cadre Management of Central Group “A”

Services has been prepared. It is submitted that the revised

Monograph on Cadre Review specifically provide that the RPF is

an OGACs.

6.6 Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the original

Writ Petitioners has further drawn the attention of this Court to

the O.M. dated 14.12.2010 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, 19

Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and

Training, which deals with the consolidated guidelines on the

cadre review of Central Group “A” Services. It submitted that

Annexure 1 to the said O.M. gives list of Central Group “A”

Services category wise. It is submitted that the first category is

non­technical services, the second is technical services, the third

is health service and the fourth one, other services. It is

submitted that the other services include CRPF, CISF, BSF and

ITBP and non­technical services includes RPF. It is submitted

that, therefore, once the O.M. has been issued accepting the

position, it cannot be stated that the same was based on the

office notes or a policy decision, as has been argued by the

learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Union of India.

6.7 It is therefore submitted by the learned Senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners that the High

Court is justified in issuing the Writ of Mandamus and observing

that the benefit of non­functional financial up­gradation granted

to the OGACs should be granted to the original Writ Petitioners,

as the cadre has been reviewed and the distinction between the

organized and non­organized cadres has already melted. 20

6.8 Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the original

Writ Petitioners has also relied upon Section 10 of the RPF Act,

1957 in support of his submission. He has submitted that the

Director General is the competent authority and not the Ministry

of Home Affairs.

7. Now, so far as the submission made on behalf of the Union

of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs and the IPS

Association that if the RPF is considered as OGACs cadre, in that

case, the same shall be contrary to the statutory provisions with

respect to filling up the posts on deputation. Reliance has been

placed upon Section 19 of the Railways Protection Force

(Amendment) Act, 1985. It is submitted that the aforesaid

provisions clearly prohibit any deputation to the Group ’A’ post.

It is submitted that as to whether a person can be appointed on

deputation to the Group “A” post in RPF, the same has been

examined by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 6081 of

2010 and after the relevant provisions of the RPF (Amendment)

Act and Rules, the High Court of Delhi has observed that there

cannot be any deputation and/or the posts in the Railway

Protection Services cannot be filled up on deputation basis. It is 21

submitted that the said judgment has been accepted by the

Ministry of Railways.

8. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the original

Writ Petitioners has also heavily relied upon the decision of this

Court in the case of Prabhat Ranjan Singh v. R.K. Kushwaha

in Civil Appeal No. 9176 of 2018 on the power of DoPT. It is

submitted that, in the aforesaid decision, this Court has observed

that the Railways is not bound by the memorandum issued by

DoPT and are empowered to frame its own rules to lay down the

service conditions of its employees.

9. Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the

present Appeal.

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties at length.

10.1 The short question which is posed for consideration before

this Court is, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,

the High Court has committed any error in treating and/or

considering the O.M. No. 96/E(GR)I/16/I dated 8.5.2003 of the

DoPT, Government of India as ‘in principle’ decision for

constitution of the RPF as an Organized Group “A” Central

Service and thereby directing to take further steps of Cadre 22

Structure of RPF as also to finalize the Service Rules with

reference to the RPF being an Organized Group “A” Central Civil

Service?

10.2 At the outset, it is required to be noted that, from the

impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it

appears that the impugned judgment and order is a consent

order, passed by the High Court only after counsel for the parties

agreed that the Court can dispose of the matter by issuing the

necessary directions. Therefore, as such, thereafter it would not

be open for the Appellants to challenge the impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court which seems to be an ad

invitem order. At this stage, it is required to be noted that, as

such, though sufficient time was granted, the original

respondents which included the Ministry of Railways, Ministry of

Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, DoPT, did not file any

counter affidavit. Therefore, as such, it was never disputed by

any of the Respondents that the O.M. dated 20.11.2003 is not an

‘in principle’ decision of the DoPT for constitution of the RPF as

an Organized Group “A” Central Service. Under the

circumstances, as such, thereafter it will not be open for the

Appellants to challenge the impugned judgment and order by 23

which the High Court has disposed of the writ petition by issuing

a Mandamus that, within a next six months, the necessary cadre

structure of RPF as also the Service Rules would be finalized with

reference to RPF being an Organized Group “A” Central Service.

The aforesaid direction is issued by the High Court considering

the fact that as far back in 2003, vide O.M. dated 20.11.2003, ‘in

principle’ decision was taken by the DoPT to constitute the RPF

as an Organized Group “A” Central Civil Service and thereafter,

even in the year 2005, draft Service Rules were prepared by the

Ministry of Railways after doing the exercise of Grade­wise Cadre

Structure and, despite the above, no final decision was taken to

constitute the RPF as an Organized Group “A” Central Civil

Service. Under the circumstances, as such, the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court does not call for

any interference by this Court.

11. Even on merits also, the Appellants have no case.

11.1 According to the Appellants, the OM dated 20.11.2003

cannot be said to be ‘in principle’ approval granted by the DoPT

to constitute the RPF as an Organized Group “A” Central Service

and the proposal will have to be placed before the Cadre Review

Committee for its approval. However, reading O.M. dated 24

20.11.2003, the High Court is justified in treating and/or

considering the same as ‘in principle’ approval by the DoPT to the

proposed constitution of the RPF as an Organized Group “A”

Central Service. However, para (2) of the said O.M. stated that

the proposal will have to be placed before the Cadre Review

Committee for its approval, just like a normal cadre review

proposal for the department for further processing. Merely

because the ‘in principle’ decision was to be placed before the

Cadre Review Committee, it cannot be said that the ‘in principle’

decision contained in the O.M. dated 20.11.2003 was subject to

the further approval and/or no ‘in principle’ decision was taken.

The said ‘in principle’ decision was to be placed before the Cadre

Review Committee for its approval just like a normal cadre review

proposal for further processing. It is required to be noted that

while issuing the O.M. dated 20.11.2003, the DoPT did consider

the Ministry of Railways’ O.M. dated 8.5.2003 by which the

Ministry of Railways by a detailed note has opined to constitute

the RPF as an Organized Group “A” Central Service. Therefore,

the submission on behalf of the Appellants and the DoPT that

O.M. dated 20.11.2003 of the DoPT cannot be said to be ‘in

principle’ decision by the DoPT to the proposed constitution of 25

the RPF as an Organized Group “A” Central Service, cannot be

accepted. At the cost of repetition, it is to be noted that the High

Court was made to believe by all, including the Ministry of

Railways and DoPT that the O.M. dated 20.11.2003 is the ‘in

principle’ approval by the DoPT to the proposed constitution of

the RPF as an Organized Group “A” Central Service.

12. One of the grievances of the Department seems to be, which

is the competent authority so far as the RPF is concerned on the

issue, namely, whether the Ministry of Railways and/or the

Ministry of Home Affairs and/or DoPT. It is required to be noted

that, right from the beginning, the Ministry of Railways has

opined and proposed and/or considered the RPF as an Organised

Group “A” Central Service, which is evident from their

correspondences right from 2001 onwards. Even considering

the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, the DoPT

would have jurisdiction on the general questions relating to

recruitment, promotion and seniority pertaining to Central

Services, except the Railway Services. The DoPT would have

authority on the appointment of non­Indians to civil posts under

the Government of India, except the posts under the Department

of Railways. It also further provides that the Ministry of Railways 26

has the authority on all matters, including those relating to

Railway revenues. Therefore, the DoPT and/or the Ministry of

Home Affairs would not have any authority to deal with the

subject with respect to services of RPF.

12.1 Another thing which is required to be noted is and it is

evident from the correspondences between the Ministry of

Railways and DoPT and other authorities that, right from the

beginning, as such, the Ministry of Railways opined to constitute

the RPF as an Organised Group “A” Central Service.

13. One of the objections against treating/constituting the RPF

as an Organised Group “A” Central Services is that one of the

attributes, i.e. attribute (iv), namely, all the posts from JTS to

SAG level should be filled by promotion, is not satisfied as there

is a provision for deputation in Recruitment Rules of the RPF to

the posts of DIG and IG. At this stage, it is required to be noted

that, except the post of IG (RPF), other posts are to be filled in by

promotion or on deputation. Therefore, merely because some

posts can be filled in by way of deputation also, and otherwise, if

the posts are required to be filled in by promotion also, it cannot

be said that Attribute (iv) is not satisfied. However,

unfortunately, the posts are filled in by way of deputation only 27

resulting a stagnation so far as the officers belonging to RPF are

concerned and they are waiting since number of years for their

promotion. Neither they are getting promotion nor they are

considered as OGAS and, as such, they are denied the benefits.

13.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that even the

Ministry of Railways also prepared the draft Rules in the year

2005 after undertaking the exercise of Grade­wise Cadre

Structure.

13.2 Considering the aforesaid submissions and facts and

circumstances and the material on record, when the High Court

has issued the Mandamus considering and/or treating the O.M.

dated 20.11.2003 as ‘in principle’ decision/approval of the DoPT

to constitute the RPF as an Organised Group “A” Central Services

and thereby directing the Appellants to take further steps for

cadre structure of the RPF and finalize the Service Rules with

reference to the RPF being an Organised Group “A” Central Civil

Service, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any

error. The RPF is rightly treated and considered as an Organised

Group “A” Central Service.

14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove,

the present Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12393 of 2013 28

deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. In the

facts and circumstance of the case, there shall be no order as to

costs.

Civil Appeals @ SLP (Civil) Nos. 35548­54 of 2015 & 13937/2016

15. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi dated

3.9.2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 153 of 2013 and other allied

Writ Petitions and the judgment and order dated 15.12.2015

passed in Writ Petition© No. 3529/2015, by which the High

Court has allowed the same preferred by the private Respondents

herein and has quashed and set aside the O.M. dated 28.10.2013

and all other letters, whereby the original Writ Petitioners’

request for grant of Non­Functional Financial Upgradation

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘NFFU’) was rejected and by which

the High Court has also directed the Respondents therein to

issue requisite notification granting the benefits of NFFU, as

recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission to the original

Writ Petitioners, the original Respondents – Union of India and

Others have preferred the present Appeals.

29

16. The facts leading to the present Appeals in nutshell are as

under:

That the original Writ Petitioners were serving in the CRPF. All of

them were denied the NFFU as applicable to other Group “A”

Officers of the Central Government. Therefore, they approached

the High Court challenging the decision of the original

Respondents – Appellants herein, whereby their request for the

grant of NFFU as applicable to other Group “A” Officers of the

Central Government, was rejected.

16.1 It appears that during the pendency of proceedings before

the High Court, vide an Order dated 26.9.2013, the High Court

directed the Appellants herein ­ original Respondents to re­

examine the issue regarding grant of NFFU to Group “A” Officers

of the CRPF, BSF and Indo­Tibetan Border Police. However, vide

an O.M. dated 28.10.2013 issued by the Ministry of Home

Affairs, the issue was decided against the original Writ

Petitioners. Therefore, the original Writ Petitioners amended the

writ petitions and challenged the subsequent O.M. dated

28.10.2013.

16.2 Before the High Court, the original Writ Petitioners, inter

alia, prayed for the following reliefs:

30

(1) A writ of mandamus to grant them, i.e. Executive Group­

A Officers of CAPFs the benefit of NFFU with effect from

1.6.2006, as given to other Officers of Group­A Service

under PB­3 and PB­4, as issued vide O.M. dated

24.4.2009.

(2) That they be formally declared as an Organized Group

“A” Service with effect from 1.1.2006 with all

consequential benefits.

17. It was the case on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners

before the High Court that all the original Writ Petitioners, as

such, belong to Central Services Group “A”. It was the case on

behalf of the original Writ Petitioners before the High Court that,

all throughout, right from 1986, CRPF, BSF etc. were declared

and considered as Organized Group “A” Services. It was also the

case on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners that in the

monograph/monographs on “Cadre Management of Group “A”

Central Services”, the BSF and CRPF are included in the list of

Central Services (Group “A”). [1986 Monograph, 1993

Monograph].

17.1 It was also the case on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners

that, as such, the word “organized” has no legal status apropos 31

identification of Central Group “A” Services and, at best, the word

has been introduced by someone over a period of time for

administrative convenience which has resulted in confusion. It

was submitted that the list in the Monograph includes 58

services which have been categorized as Non­Technical Services,

Technical Services, Health Services and other services, i.e., ITBP,

CISF, BSF and CRPF at serial nos. 50, 51, 52 and 53 thereof.

17.2 It was also the case on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners

that they meet all the attributes of an organized service,

including Attribute (iv). It was submitted that insofar as attribute

(iv) is concerned, a deputationist can only come against ex­cadre

posts, by virtue of their own Cadre Rules, therefore, all the

vacancies from JTS to SAG levels are only filled by promotion

from the cadre officers. It was further the case on behalf of the

original Writ Petitioners that, as such, in order to overcome the

stagnation problems, the 6th Pay Commission recommended

NFFU to all Group “A” Officers in various Organized Group “A”

Services. It was submitted that the purpose of granting NFFU

was to give relief to Group “A” Officers facing the problem of

stagnation as a fall­back option when regular promotions do not

come due to various factors. It was submitted that, therefore, 32

the benefit of NFFU is required to be given to organization/cadres

facing the problem of acute stagnation. It was submitted that

CPMFs are facing had huge problem of stagnation and thus non­

grant of NFFU is most arbitrary.

18. All these aforesaid writ petitions were opposed by the Union

of India. It was submitted that O.M. dated 28.10.2013 has been

issued after careful consideration of the submissions and the

case on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners and therefore a

conscious decision was taken that the original Writ Petitioners

who belong to CRPF cannot be termed as Organized Group “A”

Services.

18.1 It was submitted on behalf of the Union of India that six

attributes are to be fulfilled before the CRPF and BSF are

considered as Organized Group “A” Services. It was submitted

that, as such, though the original Writ Petitioners – personnel of

CRPF are meeting all first three attributes, however, they do not

meet with the 4th and 6th attributes. It was submitted that even

if the six attributes are met, it has to meet certain other criteria,

for which reliance placed was the O.M. dated 19/20.11.2009.

18.2 That, thereafter, the High Court having considered the

submissions made on behalf of both the parties and considering 33

the material on record, more particularly, the monographs

published by the DoPT from time to time, came to the conclusion

that the CPMFs have been shown as a part of the Central Group

“A” Services and that they meet the condition of being organized.

The High Court opined that the Government had itself admitted

way back that BSF and CRPF are organized services and have, in

fact, used them as examples of Organized Services. On

considering 1986, 1993 and 2010 Monographs, the High Court

observed that CMPFs has been shown as part of Group “A”

Central Civil Services. Having observed and coming to the above

findings, the High Court by the impugned judgment and order

has quashed and set aside the O.M. dated 28.10.2013 and other

allied letters, whereby the original Writ Petitioners request for

grant of NFFU was rejected and consequently directed the

Appellants – original Respondents to issue requisite notification

granting the benefit of NFFU to the original Writ Petitioners as

recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission.

18.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned

judgments and orders, the Union of India and others have

preferred the present Appeals.

34

19. Shri Lekhi, learned ASG has vehemently submitted that, by

passing the impugned judgments and orders, the High Court has

materially erred in holding that the CMPFs were consciously

constituted as OGAS and thereby has materially erred in

directing the issuance of notification to grant benefit of NFFU to

CRPF.

19.1 It is submitted by the learned ASG that, before any services

can be included in OGAS, six attributes are required to be

fulfilled, as has been noted in the Monograph of 1993, as well as

in the O.M. dated 19/20.11.2009. He submitted that, in the

present case, the CRPF does not fulfil the 4 th attribute, namely,

all the vacancies above JTS and up to SAG levels are filled up by

promotion from the next lower grade. It is further submitted

that, even in the O.M. dated 19/20.11.2009, in paragraph 2, it

has been specifically provided that even if the services/cadres

fulfil the above criteria – six attributes, automatically they cannot

be conferred the status of OGAS. It is submitted that it further

provides that an Organized Group “A” Service is one which is

constituted consciously, as such, by the Cadre Controlling

Authorities and such a service shall be constituted only through 35

the established procedures. It is submitted that, therefore, 6

attributes are “basic attributes” which need to be fulfilled.

19.2 It is further submitted by Shri Lekhi, learned ASG that even

as per the Recruitment Rules, namely the IPS (Cadre) Rules,

1954, the vacancies above JTS up to SAG level are not wholly

filled up by promotion from the next lower grade, but by

deputation of IPS Officers. It is submitted that there is no

challenge to the relevant Rules. It is submitted that, therefore,

attribute no. 4 has not all been satisfied.

19.3 It is further submitted by the learned ASG that, as such,

NFFU was granted only to OGAS pursuant to the

recommendation of 6th CPC. It is submitted that the

Commission specifically recommended against the constitution of

CAPFs as OGAS as they do not specifically fulfil the requirement

that all posts from JTS to SAG level should be filled by

promotion. It is submitted that a conscious decision has been

taken not to grant NFFU to the CRPF as the CRPF/CAPF cannot

be treated as OGAS.

19.4 It is further submitted by the learned ASG that, even

otherwise, the High Court has erred in interfering with the

conscious decision contained in the O.M. dated 28.10.2013, that 36

too, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. It is submitted that, after careful

consideration and considering the pros and cons of the matter, a

conscious decision was taken contained in O.M. 23.10.2013. He

submitted that, therefore, the impugned orders of the High Court

are completely unwarranted in law as it is a settled principle that

the proceedings in judicial review deal not with merits of decision

making, but with the method by which the decision is taken. It

is submitted that there was no warrant for the High Court while

exercising jurisdiction in Judicial Review to substitute its view

with the discretion exercised by an expert authority which was

hearing the parties concerned.

20. Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the

present Appeals and quash and set aside impugned judgments

and orders passed by the High Court.

21. Present Appeals are vehemently opposed by the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners.

21.1.It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the Respondents – original Writ Petitioners that the

impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court do not

call for any interference by this Court, as the High Court has 37

passed the impugned judgments and orders considering the

relevant material on record and considering the fact that, right

from 1986, the CRPF etc. are treated and considered as Group

“A” Organized Services.

21.2 It is submitted on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners that,

as such, right from the beginning of Civil Service System in India,

the services fulfilling the essential requirements were recognized

and treated as Organized Services. It is submitted that, as such,

there are no statutory provisions for formally declaring Group “A

Service to be an Organized Service. He submitted that, even as

per the record of DoPT, it is admittedly prepared after observing

due formalities, the Central Para­Military Forces formally stand

to be the Organized Services since 1986. It is submitted that the

isolated posts are those posts which do not have proper

gradation, hierarchy, recruitment plan, recruitment rules etc.

and, on the contrary, the Organized Services are those services

which have proper recruitment plan, quota fixed direct entry,

quota fixed for promotion and deputation etc., which fact is

evident from the Cadre Management Monograph issued by the

DoPT in 1986. It is vehemently submitted that, in the list given

in the Monograph, the names of BSF and CRPF can be seen. It is 38

submitted that it was only in the O.M. dated 20.11.2009, a doubt

has been created solely on the ground that one of the attributes

out of six attributes has not been fulfilled. It is submitted that

O.M. dated 20.11.2009 specifying the six attributes cannot apply

to these Forces as they have been treated and declared as

Organized Services by the DoPT time and again through their

own monographs and various other correspondence. It is

submitted that, as such, the BSF, CRPF and ITBP were brought

into the category of regularly constituted Organized Services on

fulfilling the essential requirements of an Organized Service and

the same is also referred to in the Note of DoE dated 21.10.1986.

21.3 It is further submitted that, in fact, the DoPT, while issuing

the O.M. dated 20.11.2009 had by laying down the six attributes,

clearly stated that the existing OGAS who have evolved over a

period of time may have minor deviations owing to their

functional requirements and, therefore, clarified that such

services already declared need not be reviewed. It is further

submitted that, as such, the attributes mentioned in O.M. dated

20.11.2009 are only basic requirements and not pre­conditions

for service to be called an Organized Service.

39

21.4 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original Writ

Petitioners has brought the attention of this Court to the

Monographs of 1986 and 1993 from the Cadre Management of

Group “A” Central Services and has vehemently submitted that

the cadre reviews were done only after in­depth research work by

study teams and are based on recommendations of

Administrative Reforms Commission. It is submitted that, in the

aforesaid monographs, CRPF, BSF etc. are held to be and

considered as an Organized Group “A” Services. It is submitted

that, therefore, thereafter it is not open for the DoPT and/or

others not to treat the CRPF as a Central Service Group “A” and

thereby to deny the NFFU.

21.5 It is further submitted on behalf of the original Writ

Petitioners that, even otherwise, there is a clear hierarchy of

posts in the three Forces which have sufficient cadre strength

with promotional avenues and, therefore, they meet all the

necessary requisites of an Organized Service, including the 4 th

attribute by filling all vacancies in Senior Administrative Grade

(SAG) post on which they have right to hold.

21.6 It is further submitted on behalf of the original Writ

Petitioners that even Non­functional Selection Grade was granted 40

to all CAPFs and, as per the DoPT own admission, Non­functional

Selection Grade is granted only to Organized Group “A” Services.

21.7 It is further submitted on behalf of the original Writ

Petitioners that even after issuance of the O.M. dated

20.11.2009, the Monograph published in the year 2010, while

referring to the consolidated guidelines dated 14.12.2010, makes

specific reference to the list of existing Central Group “A” Services

annexed to the O.M. It is submitted that in the said list, ITBP,

BSF and CRPF appear at Sl. Nos. 50, 52 and 53 respectively.

21.8 It is further submitted on behalf of the original Writ

Petitioners that, as such, the plea of the Appellants that the

Respondents do not fulfil attribute (iv) overlooks the fact that

attribute (iv) refers to filling of vacancies and not posts. It is

submitted that, in fact, there are large stagnations in CPMF

cadres at the level of posts wherever deputation quota for IPS

Officers has been fixed. It is submitted that, on one hand,

they fix the quota for IPS Officers at SAG Level and then claim

that vacancies are not being filled by cadre officers. It is

submitted that, in all the three Forces, number of Officers in

Group “A” Services are available and, in fact, eligible for

promotion at various levels, but they are in fact stagnating for a 41

prolonged period even after meeting the requisites of the

Promotion Rules. It is submitted that, in fact, noting of the

Government in one of their files, bearing No. P­I­1/2012 Pers­

DA­Pa notices that fact that non­fulfilling the attribute (iv) cannot

be attributed to the CAPFs and it is not as if the Force is short of

officers to fill up the vacancies upto the IG rank. It is submitted

that, in fact, the note also records that the cadre officer should

not be in dis­advantageous position in terms of delay in

promotional avenues.

21.9 It is further submitted on behalf of the original Writ

Petitioners that, as such, pursuant to the recommendations of

the 4th Pay Commission, DoPT has introduced financial benefit

called Non­functional Selection Grade way back in 1990. It is

submitted that perusal of the list of services upon whom the said

benefit was applicable would show that the names of CRPF, BSF

and ITBP are mentioned therein. It is submitted that CAPFs were

granted the benefit which is only granted to the Organized Group

“A” Services and, therefore, it clearly proves that CPMFs were

treated as Organized Group “A” Services.

21.10 It is further submitted on behalf of the original Writ

Petitioners that the 6th Central Pay Commission is only 42

recommendatory and it does not grant an organization the status

of an organized or non­organized upon various services. It is

submitted that it is the DoPT, which is a nodal agency to declare

the services under a particular group. It is submitted that, as

such, the DoPT in its various monographs has referred to the

procedures for conducting cadre review and to show that the

Cadre Review Exercise is done of a regularly constituted Service

(Organized Services). It is further submitted that, as per the

DOPT Monographs, the Cadre Review Exercise is done only for

the Organized Group “A” Services and a list of services whose

cadre was reviewed by DoPT was also attached with the said

Monographs, which bears the name of CAPFs. It is submitted

that, therefore, the submission on behalf of Appellants that

CAPFs was not recommended by the 6 th Central Pay Commission

and therefore not entitled to NFFU, is contrary to the procedures

and the delegation of power.

21.11 It is further submitted on behalf of the original Writ

Petitioners that, as such, there are promotion avenues and

hierarchy of posts and merely because some posts are filled up

on deputation cannot be a ground to deny the status of

Organized Group “A” Services to CRPF etc, and on the ground 43

that Attribute (iv) has not been satisfied and/or fulfilled. It is

submitted that there are number of many other

organizations/services, including the Indian Audit and Accounts

Services, Central Health Services, Indian Legal Services etc. who

have a number of deputationists and still they are granted the

benefits treating them as Organized Group “A” Services. It is

submitted that, therefore, even otherwise, the action of the

Appellants in denying the benefit of NFFU to the CAPFs is illegal,

arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

22. Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the

present Appeals.

23. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective

parties at length.

23.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the issue in the

present Appeals is non­grant of NFFU to the Officers/employees

like the original Writ Petitioners serving in the CRPF. CRPF in

the present case is denied the NFFU solely on the ground that the

CRPF is not an Organized Group “A” Service and, therefore, they

are denied the benefits of NFFU as recommended by the 6 th Pay

Commission as granted to other services.

44

23.2 That, while considering the aforesaid issue, the object of

grant of NFFU is required to be considered. In order to overcome

the stagnation problems, the 6th Pay Commission recommended

NFFU to all Group “A” Officers in various Organized Group “A”

Services. The purpose of granting NFFU was to give relief to

Group “A” Officers facing the problem of stagnation as fall­back

option when regular promotions do not come into various factors.

It has come on record that CPMFs are facing huge problem of

stagnation, more particularly, on one hand, they are not being

granted the promotion as most of the promotional posts are filled

in by deputation and, on the other hand, they are denied NFFU.

23.3 As observed hereinabove, CMPFs are not granted the benefit

of NFFU on the ground that they are not categorized as Organized

Group “A” Services. As noted hereinabove, it is the case on

behalf of the Appellants that, out of six attributes which are

required to be considered for treating and/or considering an

organization as an Organized Group “A” Services, the CRPF do

not satisfy Attribute nos. (iv) and (vi) and also on the ground that

the 6th Pay Commission did not recommend grant of NFFU to

CAPFs.

45

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 Organized Group “A” Services.

23.5 So far as the submission made on behalf of the Appellants

that CAPFs are not an Organized Group “A” Services as they do

not satisfy two attributes out of six attributes is concerned, it is

required to be noted that the O.M. 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 Organized Group “A”

Service. Thus, as rightly observed by the High Court in the

impugned judgment and order, fulfilling/compliance of the 46

attributes shall not be given too weightage while deciding on the

status of CAPFs.

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

Organized Services like BSF, CRPF. Thus, the Government itself

has itself admitted way back on 21.10.1986 that BSF and CRPF

are Organized Services and have, in fact, used them as examples

of Organized 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 at 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 Organized Group “A”

Central Civil Services, the High Court has considered the report

of the Second Administrative Reform Committee which included 47

in Table 4.1 a list of all Organized 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.

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 CIPFs do not constitute

Organized Group “A” Central Civil Services/Group “A” Central

Civil Services.

24. Now, so far as another ground on which the CRPF are

denied the 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 “Organized 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 48

taken that CAPFs are not Organized Group “A” Central Services

and, therefore, on the basis of such a stand, the Department

must have given the information to the Central Pay Commission

and, therefore, the 6th Pay Commission did not recommend NFFU

to CAPFs. Therefore, merely because the 6 th Pay Commission did

not recommend to grant NFFU to CAPFs – Group “A” Officers in

PB­III and PB­IV, the Group “A” Officers in PB­III and PB­IV

cannot be denied the NFFU, which otherwise is granted to all the

Officers of Group “A” Central Civil Services.

24.1 It is also required to be noted that, as such, the CAPFs were

granted the benefit of recommendations of 4 th Pay Commission,

more particularly, the Modified Assured Career Progression

Scheme which was given to the Central Group “A” Civil Services.

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 PB­III and PB­IV in the

CAPFs are Organized 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 a

requisite notification granting the benefits of NFFU as 49

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.

25. In view of the facts and circumstances, present Appeals

arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 35548­35554 of 2015 and

13937/2016 deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly

dismissed. In the facts and circumstance of the case, there shall

be no order as to costs.

SLP (C) CC No. 5735/2016, SLP (C) CC No. 5736/2016, SLP (C) CC No. 5737/2016, SLP (C) CC No. 5738/2016, SLP (C) CC No. 5743/2016, SLP (C) CC No. 5742/2016 & SLP (C) ……CC No. 5740/2016

26. So far as these petitions seeking permission to file the

special leave petitions are concerned, in view of the reasons

stated in the Civil Appeal @ SLP© No. 12393/2013, and as we

concur with the impugned judgment and order passed by the

High Court, and even otherwise considering the fact that by

granting RPF as an Organized Group ‘A’ Central Services, the

rights of the IPS, if any, for their appointment on deputation on

some of the posts in RPF cannot be said to have been affected 50

and merely because some posts in the RPF might have been

required to be filled in by way of deputation also, grant of status

of Organized Group ‘A’ Central Services to RPF shall not affect

the IPS, the applications for permission to file the special leave

petitions deserve to be declined and are accordingly declined.

…..……………………………..J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

….………………………………J. (M. R. SHAH) New Delhi, February 05, 2019.