Full Judgment Text
1
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
J U D G M E N T
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
th
OGACs status in view of the recommendations of 6 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
th
recommended by the 6 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 6 | th | 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
th th
meet with the 4 and 6 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
th
recommended by the 6 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
th
present case, the CRPF does not fulfil the 4 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
th
recommendation of 6 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
th
necessary requisites of an Organized Service, including the 4
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
th
the 4 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
th
Petitioners that the 6 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
th
CAPFs was not recommended by the 6 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
th
are denied the benefits of NFFU as recommended by the 6 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
th
the stagnation problems, the 6 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
th
the 6 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
th
denied the NFFU that the 6 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
th
and, therefore, the 6 Pay Commission did not recommend NFFU
th
to CAPFs. Therefore, merely because the 6 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
th
granted the benefit of recommendations of 4 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
th
6 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
th
the benefits recommended by the 6 Pay Commission by way of
NFFU and thereby has directed the Appellants to issue a
requisite notification granting the benefits of NFFU as
49
th
recommended by the 6 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.