Nema Singh Otti vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~100
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 27 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010478502023
+ W.P.(C) 15333/2023
NEMA SINGH OTTI .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, SPC with Mr.
Anuj Chaturvedi and Ms. Yashita Jain, Advocates
for UoI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER PAL SINGH
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of
Constitution of India seeking writ of mandamus to the Respondents for grant
Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (‘NFFU’) in Junior Administrative
Grade (‘JAG’) to the Petitioner from the date the benefit was granted to his
batchmates, with all consequential benefits.
2. To the extent necessary, case of the Petitioner is that he was enrolled
as Sub-Inspector in BSF on 05.12.1988 and was promoted to different ranks
from time to time, owing to his dedicated and exemplary service. While
Petitioner was posted at 129 BN BSF, a false FIR No. 56/2007 was
registered on 22.03.2007 under Sections 21, 25, 61 and 85 of NDPS Act,
1985 against the Petitioner and one Constable (Driver) Chaman Lal for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
W.P.(C) 15333/2023 Page 1 of 8

alleged involvement in smuggling of 4 kgs of narcotics and basis this
Petitioner was suspended by the Respondents on 03.04.2012.
3. It is stated that vide judgment dated 05.11.2011, learned Sessions
Judge, Special Court, District Kapurthala, Punjab convicted the Petitioner
and sentenced him to undergo 10 years RI with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and
basis this, Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated
23.03.2012. The judgment was challenged by the Petitioner before the
Punjab and Haryana High Court and vide judgment dated 01.04.2013, the
Court acquitted the Petitioner of all charges and resultantly, Petitioner
submitted a representation dated 02.05.2013 to the Respondents for
reinstatement in service with all benefits.
4. It is stated that when no action was taken by the Respondents,
Petitioner filed W.P. (C) 2894/2014 before this Court and during the
pendency of the petition, Central Government issued an order dated
15.12.2014, directing reinstatement of the Petitioner and treating the period
of absence from 03.04.2007 till the date of reinstatement in service as period
spent on duty for all purposes and thus granting full pay and allowances
under provisions of FR54 (2) and (3). Writ petition was disposed of, taking
on record this order and directing the Respondents to pay to the Petitioner
arrears towards pay and allowances, within two months. By order dated
04.02.2019, Respondents granted notional promotion to the Petitioner in the
rank of Deputy Commandant w.e.f. 27.11.2009.
5. On 02.03.2020, Respondents issued an order granting NFFU in JAG
to batchmates of the Petitioner, but his name was conspicuously missing
from the order, despite being eligible for grant of NFFU. Petitioner
submitted representations dated 06.03.2020 and 26.06.2023 to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
W.P.(C) 15333/2023 Page 2 of 8

Competent Authority but no response was received and hence, this petition
was filed.
6. Insofar as the Respondents are concerned, the facts as noted above are
not at variance. It is, however, the stand of the Respondents that when
Petitioner and Constable (Driver) Chamanlal were arrested in connection
with the criminal case, a Staff Court of Inquiry (SCOI) was conducted to
enquire into the circumstances leading to commission of the alleged acts. At
the time of finalising the SCOI proceedings, ADG, BSF (WC)
recommended issue of DGs Displeasure to the Petitioner for frequent
violation of SOP regarding entry and exit from the fence gate at IB and
accordingly, show cause notice was issued on 29.03.2017 and being
dissatisfied with Petitioner’s reply, DGs Displeasure was awarded vide letter
dated 05.06.2017.
7. It is submitted that as per DoPT OM dated 24.04.2009, all prescribed
eligibility criteria and promotional norms, including benchmark for
upgradation to a particular Grade Pay would have to be met at the time of
screening for grant of higher pay-scale under NFFU and there is no
provision for relaxation. Petitioner’s case was considered for grant of NFFU
with his batch by the Screening Committee held on 10.06.2022, however,
the committee observed that Petitioner did not have the requisite two years
Mandatory Field Service (MFS) as Deputy Commandant in Duty Battalion
on crucial date i.e., 01.01.2020, which was mandatory for grant of NFFU in
terms of the Recruitment Rules. Accordingly, Petitioner was not granted the
benefit and when he completed two years MFS, he was considered by the
Screening Committee on 26.08.2022, but was not recommended for grant of
NFFU owing to DGs Displeasure awarded to the Petitioner on 05.06.2017,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
W.P.(C) 15333/2023 Page 3 of 8

since ACR for the said year was taken into consideration by the Screening
Committee. Accordingly, Petitioner was assessed ‘unfit’ for NFFU w.e.f.
01.01.2021 and for the same reason, he was also not recommended for
NFFU by the Screening Committee held on 23.03.2023 for the year 2022
and by the Screening Committee held on 27.09.2024 for the year 2023. It is
also urged that it is a settled law that DPC has the discretion to devise its
own method and procedure for assessment of suitability and merit of the
candidate and once the Screening Committee was of the view that with DGs
Displeasure on record in the profile of the Petitioner, he was not entitled to
NFFU, no interference ought to be made by this Court exercising power of
judicial review and to support this plea, reliance is placed on the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Another v. S.K. Goel and
Others, (2007) 14 SCC 641.
8. Responding to the aforesaid submissions of the Respondents, learned
counsel for the Petitioner submits that the only reason for non-grant of
NFFU to the Petitioner was DGs Displeasure, however, this ground is
unsustainable in law in light of the judgment of this Court in Dr. O.P.
Nimesh v. Union of India and Others, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12003,
where the Division Bench held that in light of DoPT OM dated 27.03.2015,
displeasure not being a penalty enlisted in Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965 (CCA Rules), cannot be taken into consideration for denying
promotion and therefore, DPC went wrong in giving weightage to
displeasure, as a factor to deny promotion. This judgment was followed by
the Division Bench in Arun Kumar v. Union of India & Ors, in W.P. (C)
8029/2019. Subsequently, in Chander Sen Singh v. Union of India & Anr.,
W.P.(C) No. 11418/2024 and Mohit Pundeer v. Union of India & Ors.,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
W.P.(C) 15333/2023 Page 4 of 8

W.P. (C) No. 11452/2024, both decided by common order dated 05.09.2024,
it was held that DGs Displeasure cannot come in the way of grant of NFFU,
if the individual is otherwise eligible and therefore, the reason for denial of
NFFU to the Petitioner herein is untenable in law.
9. Heard learned counsels for the parties and examined their
submissions.
10. Indisputably, the sole reason for not granting NFFU in JAG to the
Petitioner was the award of DGs Displeasure on 05.06.2017. In our view,
Petitioner is right in his submission that it is no longer res integra that
displeasure cannot be a ground to deny promotion or NFFU. In Dr. O.P.
Nimesh (supra), this Court examined the issue in detail and after closely
looking at the judicial precedent as also DoPT OM dated 15.07.2015, held
that displeasure cannot be taken by the DPC to deny promotion since
‘displeasure’ is not a penalty enlisted in Rule 11 of CCA Rules. In this
context, we may refer to paragraphs 12 and 13 from the judgment:-
“ 12. On (i) above, there is nothing in the proceedings of the DPC, except
stating that DPC in terms of guidelines of DoP&T is required to make its
own assessment on the basis of entries in the ACR's, to suggest that DPC
had made its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the CRs. Had it
been so, it should have depicted in what manner, the petitioner has not met
the benchmark. Such an expression, surely would have made the decision
more transparent. We also find that the DPC had considered the
th
displeasure communicated to the petitioner on 4 December, 2012 for
declaring the petitioner unfit for promotion. As per the DOP&T OM dated
th
27 March, 2015, which was in place when the DPC was held on
th
15 July, 2015, it is clear that, “displeasure” is not a penalty enlisted in
Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and it could not have been
considered for denying promotion. The relevant part of OM dated
th
27 March, 2015 is reproduced as under:—
“No.I.45026/01/2015-Pers.III Government of India Ministry of Home
Affairs
th
North Block, New Delhi Dated the 27 March, 2015 OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
W.P.(C) 15333/2023 Page 5 of 8

Subject : Instructions regarding the effect of award of DG's
displeasure of officers of the Central Armed Police Forces.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Ministry's letter No.
I.45026/25/87-Pers-II dated June 1989 on the subject mentioned
above and to issue the following fresh instructions in supersession of
the aforesaid letter:—
(i) Displeasure is not a penalty enlisted in Rule 11 of CCS(CCA)
Rules, 1965 and therefore it cannot be considered for denial of
promotion,
(ii) If a Displeasure or warning has been given to an officer/Member
of the CAPF, the Reporting/Reviewing/Accepting Authority, while
writing the Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR), should
take this into consideration and decide to reflect or not to reflect the
same based on the improvement or otherwise noticed in the person
after receipt or the displeasure or warning.
(iii) Once the APAR of an officer or member of the CAPF is finalized
for the year or the date for finalizing such APAR is over, the
displeasure or warning conveyed will become infructuous.
2. These revised instructions will take effect from the date of issue of
this OM. In no case, cases settled before issue of this OM in the light
of the instructions dated June 1989 in vogue till now, will be
reopened.”
13. Hence the two aspects which weighed with the DPC are clearly
untenable and could not have resulted in the petitioner not being
recommended for promotion to the post of IG (Medical). It appears, the
stand of the respondents, in the counter affidavit, is an after though only to
wriggle out of an unreasoned decision taken to deny promotion to the
petitioner.”

11. This judgment was subsequently followed in the case of Arun Kumar
(supra), where the DPC found the Petitioner unfit for promotion to the post
of Deputy Commandant due to a note of DGs Displeasure in the relevant
APAR and the Court relying on decision in Dr. O.P. Nimesh (supra),
negated the contention of the Respondents that the displeasure could be a
reason to deny promotion and directed re-consideration of his case. We may
note that the judgment in S.K. Goel (supra), cited by the Respondents herein
was also relied upon by the Respondents in Dr. O.P. Nimesh (supra) and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
W.P.(C) 15333/2023 Page 6 of 8

the Division Bench observed that no doubt, the DPC enjoys full discretion to
devise its methods and procedures for objective assessment of suitability and
merit of a candidate and the recommendations should not be interfered with
unless they are in gross violation of concerned instructions or rules etc.,
however, DPC went wrong in ignoring DoPT OM dated 27.03.2015 and
decided contrary thereto by taking the displeasure into consideration, which
was impermissible. We entirely agree with this reasoning and hold that
while DPC has full discretion to devise its own method to assess a candidate
but it cannot act contrary to or in violation of Instructions/Rules on the
subject.
12. It was lastly submitted by the Respondents that the two judgments in
Dr. O.P. Nimesh (supra) and Arun Kumar (supra) pertain to cases of
promotion while the present case relates to grant of NFFU and hence, the
judgments are inapplicable. This contention only merits rejection. In
Chander Sen Singh (supra) and Mohit Pundeer (supra) , decided by
common order, this Court has taken a view that displeasure will not come in
the way of grant of NFFU and therefore, Petitioner’s case is covered by
these judgments. It does not stand to reason that while displeasure, which is
not a prescribe penalty under CCA Rules, will not be an impediment for
promotion, it will be an obstruction for grant of financial upgradation such
as NFFU. It cannot also be overlooked that DoPT OM dated 24.04.2009,
which governs grant of NFFU, provides in Para 3 of ‘Terms and Conditions
for Grant of Higher Pay-Scale on Non-Functional Basis to Officers of
Organized Group-A Services’ that all prescribed eligibility criteria and
promotional norms including benchmark for upgradation to a particular
Grade Pay would have to be met at the time of screening for grant of higher
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
W.P.(C) 15333/2023 Page 7 of 8

pay-scale under these orders and therefore, once the displeasure is not a
handicap for promotion, it cannot be for grant of NFFU.
13. For all the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed and
Respondents are directed to hold Review Screening Committee and consider
the case of the Petitioner afresh for grant of NFFU in JAG within a period of
eight weeks from today. If the Petitioner is found fit, NFFU in JAG will be
granted to the Petitioner from the date the upgradation was granted to his
batchmates, with all consequential benefits.
14. Writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.


JYOTI SINGH, J


GURVINDER PAL SINGH, J
OCTOBER 27, 2026/AK
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
W.P.(C) 15333/2023 Page 8 of 8