Sanjay Prakash vs. Union Of India

2025 INSC 779


REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13104 OF 2024


SANJAY PRAKASH & ORS. APPELLANT(S)


VERSUS


UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13105 OF 2024

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13106 OF 2024

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13107 OF 2024

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13108 OF 2024
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAVITA PAHUJA
Date: 2025.05.23
17:53:14 IST
Reason:




AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13110 OF 2024


J U D G M E N T

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
Substantive grievance in all the civil appeals being
identical, those were heard together and are being disposed of
by this common judgment and order.
2. All the civil appeals arise out of the common
judgment and order dated 27.07.2020 passed by the High
Court of Delhi (High Court) disposing of the following writ
petitions:
(i) W.P.(C) No. 12052 of 2019 ( Tarun Kumar
Banjaree & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. );
(ii) W.P.(C) No. 12751 of 2019 ( Sanjay Prakash &
Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. );
(iii) W.P.(C) No. 12875 of 2019 ( Mahendra Singh Deo
Vs. Union of India & Ors. );
2


(iv) W.P.(C) No. 13014 of 2019 ( Radha Mohan Meena
& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. ); and
(v) W.P.(C) No. 13588 of 2019 ( Sudhir Kumar Singh
and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. ).

3. It may be mentioned that the above five writ
petitions were filed before the High Court by personnel
belonging to different services viz. Central Reserve Police Force
(CRPF), Border Security Force (BSF), Sashastra Seema Bal
(SSB), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and Central Industrial
Security Force (CISF), collectively known as Central Armed
Police Forces (CAPFs). In all the five writ petitions, the following
reliefs were sought:
(i) for a direction to the Union of India in respect of
each of the CAPFs to fill up all the additional posts
created pursuant to the cadre review (CR) of the year
2016 as per the existing recruitment rules which
provide for certain percentage of posts at each level
upto Senior Administrative Grade being filled up by
way of deputation;
3


(ii) for a direction to the respondents to amend the
recruitment rules of each service i.e. CAPFs by
including various attributes as required by the Office
Memorandum dated 19.11.2009 issued by the
Department of Personnel and Training, Government of
India (DoPT) read with the related Office Memoranda
dated 24.03.2009, 24.04.2009, 15.12.2009 and
08.05.2018 by providing that all posts upto Senior
Administrative Grade should be filled up by way of
promotion only and not by way of deputation;
(iii) thereafter, to conduct cadre review of Group-A
officers of each cadre by treating each service as
Organized Group-A Service (OGAS).

4. In support of the prayers made, appellants relied
upon the report of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, OM
dated 19.11.2009 of the DoPT and the decision of this Court
1
in Union of India Vs. Harananda by which the decision of the
2
High Court in G.J. Singh Vs. Union of India has been affirmed.

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


5. At the outset, let us examine the report of the Sixth
Central Pay Commission which was of March, 2008. The report
indicated that mandate of the Sixth Central Pay Commission
was not only to evolve a proper pay package for the government
employees but also to make recommendations rationalizing the
governmental structure with emphasis on accountability,
responsibility and assimilation of technology etc. The Sixth
Central Pay Commission recommended that the next cadre
review exercise should take into consideration its
recommendations. The report indicated that despite
recommendations of the earlier Central Pay Commissions and
cadre reviews carried out earlier, all the services still had a
great degree of stagnation at the level of Senior Administrative
Grade. Thereafter, the Sixth Central Pay Commission made
certain recommendations to ensure service progression of
officers belonging to General Civil Services (GCS) Group-A
which are not part of any Organized Group-A Service (OGAS)
having individual recruitment rules. As a matter of fact, as per
the report of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, Group A civil
5


posts in the Central Government can be broadly categorized
into two: those classified as GCS Group A and OGAS.
6. The aforesaid recommendations of the Sixth Central
Pay Commission were accepted by the Government of India.
DoPT considered a number of representations concerning
attributes and definition of OGAS on whom the benefit of Non-
Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) was conferred. DoPT
also considered several representations by personnel
belonging to General Civil Services (GCS) Group-A claiming the
status of OGAS and conferment of the benefit of NFFU.

7. This led DoPT to issue OM dated 19.11.2009
observing that the difference between an OGAS and other
services/cadres had not been fully appreciated. Therefore, to
remove any doubt, DoPT through the said OM dated
19.11.2009 spelt out the attributes of an OGAS. Relevant
portion of the OM dated 19.11.2009 of the DoPT reads as
under:
6


(i) The highest cadre post in such services is not below
the level of Rs. 37400-67000 plus Grade pay of Rs. 10000
(SAG);
(ii) Such services have all the standard grades namely,
Rs. 15600-39100 plus Grade pay Rs. 5400 (JTS), Rs.
15600-39100 plus Grade pay Rs. 6600 (STS), Rs. 15600-
39100 plus Grade pay Rs. 7600/Rs. 37400-67000 plus
Grade pay of Rs. 8700 (JAG/NFSG) and Rs. 37400-67000
plus Grade pay of Rs. 10000 (SAG);
(iii) At least 50% of the vacancies in Junior Time Scale
(JTS) in such services are required to be filled by direct
recruitment;
(iv) All the vacancies above JTS and upto SAG level in
such services are filled up by promotion from the next
lower grade;
(v) While a service may comprise one or more distinct
cadre(s), all such cadres should be governed by
composite Service Rules facilitating horizontal and
vertical movement of officers of a particular cadre at least
upto SAG level. The cadre posts of an Organised Service
expressly belong to that service. The posts not belonging
to any service are classified as General Central Service
and, therefore, an Organised Group A Service cannot
have posts/grades classified as General Central Service;
and
(vi) Such a service consists of two distinct components,
namely Regular Duty Posts and Reserves. The Reserves
are generally of four types, viz. (i) Probationary Reserves,
7


(ii) Leave Reserve, (iii) Training Reserve and (iv)
Deputation Reserve. The various types of reserves are
usually created and accounted for in the Junior Time
Scale.
Note: The existing Organised Group A Services have
evolved over a period of time and may have minor
deviations owing to their respective functional
requirements. The services already declared as such need
not, however, be reviewed.
2. The above are certain basic attributes of an Organised
Group A Service. There is, however, nothing to suggest
that the services/cadres fulfilling these criteria would be
automatically conferred the status of an Organised
Group A Service. An Organised Group A Service is one
which is constituted consciously as such by the Cadre
Controlling Authorities and such a service can be
constituted only through the established procedures.

8. Members of the CAPFs also represented that each of
the CAPFs is an OGAS and, therefore, members of the CAPFs
were entitled to the status and benefits associated with an
OGAS including the benefit of NFFU. However, representations
of the CAPFs were rejected.
9. This led to filing of a batch of writ petitions before
the High Court. Vide the judgment and order dated 03.09.2015
8


High Court allowed the writ petitions ( G.J. Singh Vs. Union of
India ). Respondents were directed to issue requisite
notification granting the benefit of NFFU to the appellants
within eight weeks.
10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of
the High Court, Union of India preferred civil appeals before
this Court. Several other civil appeals were also filed by the
Union of India against similar judgments and order of the High
Court including the judgment and order dated 04.12.2012 in
3
Harananda Vs. Union of India .
11. All the civil appeals came to be disposed of by this
Court vide the judgment and order dated 05.02.2019 in

(supra). There were two groups of appeals. One
Harananda
group pertained to declaration of Railway Protection Force
(RPF) as an OGAS within a definite timeframe with further
direction to extend all the benefits conferred on OGAS to RPF.
The other set of appeals dealt with the grievance of CAPFs
relating to rejection of the request for grant of NFFU in respect

3
2012 SCC OnLine Del 6001
9


of which the High Court had directed the respondents to issue
requisite notification granting benefit of NFFU as
recommended by the Sixth Central Pay Commission.
11.1. Insofar the first group of appeals are concerned, this
Court examined the OM dated 20.11.2003 of the DOPT and
considered as to whether under the said OM an ‘in principle’
decision was taken for constitution of the RPF as an OGAS.
High Court had treated the said OM as an ‘in principle’
decision for constitution of the RPF as an OGAS, thereafter
directing further steps for cadre restructuring of RPF and also
to finalize the service rules with reference to the RPF as an
OGAS. This Court noted that from the judgment and order of
the High Court it was evident that the same was a consent
order. This Court further noted that it was never disputed by
any of the respondents that the OM dated 20.11.2003 was not
an ‘in principle’ decision of the DOPT for constitution of the
RPF as an OGAS. Therefore, this Court held that it was not
open to the Union of India to challenge the judgment of the
High Court whereby further direction was issued by the High
10


Court that necessary cadre structure of RPF as also the service
rules should be finalized with reference to RPF being an OGAS.
This Court affirmed the aforesaid judgment and order of the
High Court and also found that even on merits, Union of India
had no case. This Court declared that RPF was rightly treated
and considered as an OGAS and that the High Court was fully
justified in directing Union of India and others to take further
steps for cadre restructuring of the RPF and to finalize the
service rules with reference to the RPF being an OGAS.
11.2. Insofar the second group of appeals are concerned,
this Court noted that the High Court had allowed the challenge
of the appellants by quashing OM dated 28.10.2013 and the
related letters whereby their request for grant of NFFU was
rejected whereafter the High Court directed the respondents to
issue requisite notification granting the benefit of NFFU as
recommended by the Sixth Central Pay Commission to the
appellants belonging to the CAPFs.
11.3. This Court noted that the issue in the aforesaid
appeals was non-grant of NFFU to the appellants serving in
11


CRPF. NFFU was being denied solely on the ground that CRPF
is not an OGAS. According to the respondents out of the six
attributes which are required to be considered for treating
and/or considering an organization as an OGAS, CRPF did not
satisfy attributes (iv) and (vi) and also on the ground that the
Sixth Central Pay Commission did not recommend grant of
NFFU to CAPFs.
11.4. This Court examined the above controversy in the
following manner:
23.5. So far as the submission made on behalf of the
appellants that CAPFs are not an Organised Group A
Services as they do not satisfy two attributes out of six
attributes is concerned, it is required to be noted that
the OM dated 19-11-2009 specifically notes that there
may be certain “minor deviations” from the attributes
listed therein and also to the extent wherein it states
that even if the listed criteria are fulfilled, the same
would not automatically confer the status of an
Organised Group A Service. Thus, as rightly observed by
the High Court in the impugned judgment and order,
fulfilling/compliance of the attributes shall not be given
too much weightage while deciding on the status of
CAPFs.
12


23.6. At this stage, it is required to be noted that while
considering the case of ITBP, the Department of
Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India,
it has been referred to in the additional affidavit of the
Director, DoPT that since ITBP has no proper structure
it is not possible to compare it with other Organised
Services like BSF, CRPF. Thus, the Government itself
has itself admitted way back on 21-10-1986 that BSF
and CRPF are Organised Services and have, in fact,
used them as examples of Organised Services. At the
cost of repetition, it is to be noted that thereafter the
Government has, through its own process, classified the
BSF, CRPF and ITBP as being on a par with each other
in the 1986, 1993 and 2010 Monographs, wherein the
aforesaid CAPFs have been shown as a part of the same
Group A Central Civil Services.
23.7. From the impugned judgments and orders passed
by the High Court, it appears that by passing the
impugned judgments and orders and holding that
CAPFs are Organised Group A Central Civil Services, the
High Court has considered the report of the Second
Administrative Reform Committee which included in
Table 4.1 a list of all Organised Group A Central Services
in the Government of India in which the Paramilitary
Forces such as BSF, CISF, SRPF and ITBP are shown at
Sl. Nos. 22 to 25 respectively and the source at the
bottom of the Table is stated to be the DoPT itself.
13


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

11.5. Thus, this Court opined that it cannot be said that
CAPFs do not constitute OGAS. Insofar the other ground that
was urged that CRPF is denied NFFU because the Sixth
Central Pay Commission did not grant NFFU to CAPFs, this
Court held thus:
24. Now, so far as another ground on which CRPF are
denied NFFU that the 6th Central Pay Commission did
not grant NFFU to CAPFs is concerned, it is required to
be borne in mind that the Central Pay Commission, as
such, is not authorised to define “Organised Services” or
to grant such status to any service. The
recommendations would be made by the Central Pay
Commission on the basis of the information submitted
to it by the various Departments. It appears from the
material on record that right from 1986 onwards, in
various Monographs CAPFs were included in the list of
Group A Central Civil Services. The Government took
“U” turn and a stand was taken that CAPFs are not
Organised Group A Central Services and, therefore, on
the basis of such a stand, the Department must have
14


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


11.6. Therefore this Court held that merely because the
Sixth Central Pay Commission did not recommend grant of
NFFU to CAPFs, the same could not be denied.
11.7. Thereafter, this Court held that the High Court was
fully justified in directing the respondents to issue requisite
notification granting NFFU to the CAPFs and concluded as

under:
24.2. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the objects and reasons of the grant of NFFU as
recommended by the 6th Pay Commission, when the High
Court has observed and consequently directed that the
officers in PB-III and PB-IV in the CAPFs are Organised
Group A Service and, therefore, entitled to the benefits
recommended by the 6th Pay Commission by way of
NFFU and thereby has directed the appellants to issue
15


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

12. Relying on the decision in Harananda (supra) and
seeking parity with RPF, the related writ petitions were filed
before the High Court seeking the reliefs as indicated above.
High Court noted that it did not find any discussion or
consideration by this Court on the aspect of the need for
deputation at some posts in CAPFs or the qualifying term on
each level of the cadre. Therefore, High Court concluded that
Harananda (supra) was not concerned with elimination of
deputation existing in CAPFs but was concerned solely with
grant of NFFU. High Court was of the view that no direction
could be issued for restructuring of the recruitment rules of
the CAPFs by complying with attributes (iv) and (vi) of the DoPT
OM dated 19.11.2009. For this, High Court relied upon the
contention of the appellants in the earlier round of writ
petitions that notwithstanding CAPFs not fulfilling the said
16


attributes they were entitled to the benefit of NFFU. Besides
that High Court also found that there was no similarity
between RPF and other CAPFs. As such, question of
discrimination did not arise. High Court further noted that
respondents had set out numerous reasons justifying
deputation in CAPFs but appellants did not seek any relief on
that ground. Therefore, High Court refrained from adjudicating
on this issue.
12.1. High Court thereafter considered the OM dated
19.11.2009 as well as the related OMs and noted that OM
dated 19.11.2009 was not for amendment of the recruitment
rules of any service. Moreover, as per the said OM, CAPFs did
not qualify as OGAS. Referring to the decisions in G.J. Singh
(supra) and Harananda (supra), this Court observed that
members of CAPFs have been held entitled to the benefit of
NFFU. High Court held that recruitment rules of CAPFs are not
required to be amended as a consequence of the said
judgments. OM dated 15.12.2009 was in reference to the
earlier OM dated 24.03.2009 whereby guidelines were issued
17


for amendment of service rules/recruitment rules to
incorporate the changes arising out of the Sixth Central Pay
Commission recommendations including bringing uniformity
in eligibility criteria across all OGAS for promotions. Besides
directing initiation of action for amendment of service rules
qua eligibility criteria for promotion to Senior Administrative
Grade level and Higher Administrative Grade level, this Court
noted that CAPFs are being treated as OGAS but only for the
purpose of NFFU. Neither from the judgment of the High Court
in G.J. Singh (supra) nor of this Court in Harananda (supra), a
directive to declare CAPFs as OGAS for all purposes
whatsoever is discernible. Adverting to the DoPT OM dated
24.04.2009, High Court was of the view that the said OM was
also on the subject of granting NFFU to OGAS in furtherance
of the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations.
12.2. It was thereafter that the High Court considered the
DoPT OM dated 08.05.2018 which was in reference to the
earlier OM dated 31.12.2010 as per which recruitment rules
should be reviewed once in five years with a view to affecting
18


such changes as have become necessary to bring the
recruitment rules in conformity with the changed position with
further direction to immediately undertake the exercise for
review of existing service rules/recruitment rules which had
not been amended in the last five years.
12.3. Insofar challenge to cadre review is concerned, High
Court declined to enter into the said controversy because as
per the OMs dated 31.12.2010 and 08.05.2018, cadre review
is required to be carried out in every five years; the last cadre
review being carried out in the year 2016. The next cadre
review was due in the year 2021. Therefore, High Court was of
the view that all that was required to be done was to issue a
direction to the respondents for carrying out the next cadre
review in which an opportunity of hearing should be given to
the cadre officers of CAPFs. Accordingly, all the writ petitions
were disposed of in the following manner:
(I) By permitting the members of each Central Armed
Police Force to, if so desire, make comprehensive
representation(s) to the Ministry of Home Affairs, for
amendment of the respective Recruitment Rules of
19


each Central Armed Police Force including qua Cadre
Structure, Residency, Deputation etc.
(II) By directing the Ministry of Home Affairs to, in
st
compliance of the DoPT OMs dated 31 December,
th
2010 and 8 May, 2018, immediately undertake the
exercise for review of existing Recruitment Rules of
each Central Armed Police Force, also taking into
consideration the representation(s), if any, received
from the members of the Central Armed Police Forces
and after giving them an opportunity of being heard
and to place its decision in this regard before the
Department of Personnel and Training.
(III) By directing the Department of Personnel and Training
to, immediately on receipt of decision from the Ministry
of Home Affairs qua review of Recruitment Rules of
respective Central Armed Police Forces, take necessary
action thereon;
(IV) By permitting the petitioners to make comprehensive
representation(s) qua each Central Armed Police Force
to the Department of Personnel and Training, qua the
Cadre Review due in the year 2021 including as to the
terms of reference if any thereof.
(V) By directing the Department of Personnel and Training
to ensure timely commencement of Cadre Review
exercise due in the year 2021 and to, in the terms of
reference qua Cadre Review for Central Armed Police
Forces, consider incorporating the representation(s), if
20


any, made by the members of each Central Armed
Police Force and the decision of the Ministry of Home
Affairs qua the review of Recruitment Rules of each
Central Armed Police Force.
(VI) By directing that the entire exercise aforesaid be
th
concluded on or before 30 June, 2021.

13. When the related special leave petitions were filed,
this Court vide the order dated 27.10.2020 had issued notice
and stayed the impugned directions. Thereafter, learned
Chamber Judge passed an order on 28.06.2021 granting leave
to the officers belonging to the Indian Police Service (IPS) for
being impleaded in the related batch of special leave petitions.
Vide the order dated 05.11.2024, leave was granted.
14. While appellants in Civil Appeal No. 13104 of 2024
(Sanjay Prakash and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.) are
officers belonging to Group-A executive cadre of the Central
Industrial Security Force (CISF), appellants in Civil Appeal No.
13106 of 2024 (Mahendra Singh Deo and Ors. Vs. Union of India
and Ors.) are officers belonging to the Border Security Force
(BSF). Similarly, appellants in Civil Appeal No. 13107 of 2024
21


(Tarun Kumar Banjaree and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.)
are officers belonging to the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP).
Appellants in Civil Appeal No. 13105 of 2024 (Sudhir Kumar
Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.) are officers
belonging to the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB). Appellants in
Civil Appeal No. 13108 of 2024 (Radha Mohan Meena and Ors.
Vs. Union of India and Ors.) are officers belonging to the Central
Reserve Police Force (CRPF). Finally, appellants in Civil Appeal
No. 13110 of 2024 (Dr. Jyoti Prakash Sharma and Ors. Vs.
Union of India and Ors.) are serving as Assistant Commandants
in the CRPF.
15. As already noticed above, grievance of the
appellants are identical though they belong to different CAPFs.
Their grievance primarily relates to declaration and treating
the CAPFs as OGAS and thereafter to extend the benefits
available to officers belonging to OGAS like grant of NFFU,
cadre review, service rule parity by amendments of the
respective recruitment rules providing uniform promotional
avenues. Core of the grievances of the appellants as it appears,
22


are non-recognition as OGAS, non-grant of NFFU and service
stagnation. The grievance is focused on the existing
recruitment rules which provides for lateral entry into their
respective services by way of deputation to various posts by
officers belonging to the Indian Police Service (IPS), in the
process resulting in complete stagnation in their service
careers. Their contention is that once the CAPFs are declared
as OGAS for all purposes, consequential steps like cadre review
and restructuring of the service rules/recruitment rules will
follow eliminating lateral entry, like by way of deputation, to
posts upto the Senior Administrative Grade level. According to
them, because of IPS officers occupying posts upto the Senior
Administrative Grade, their promotional prospects are being
hampered leading to stagnation in the service hierarchy.
16. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel, while
opening the arguments on behalf of the appellants in Civil
Appeal No. 13104 of 2024 submitted that in Harananda
(supra), this Court has unconditionally held that Group-A
executive cadre of CISF as well as other CAPFs are OGAS. Once
23


they are declared as OGAS, all the attributes of the cadre ought
to be uniformized in the subsequent cadre review in
accordance with the OM dated 19.11.2009 which specifically
states that cadre posts of OGAS expressly belong to that
service; therefore, no deputation is allowed in such a service.
16.1. He further submits that finding of the High Court
that Group-A executive cadre of CISF and the other CAPFs are
OGAS only for the purpose of grant of NFFU is not only
erroneous but is contrary to the entire reasoning of this Court.
There is no conditional or limited finding of this Court that the
said services are to be treated as OGAS only for the purpose of
grant of NFFU. He also refers to the clarificatory order of this
Court dated 18.10.2019 holding that CAPFs as well as RPF
must be treated as OGAS.
16.2. According to him, if the view of the High Court is
accepted then it would not only mean overruling the judgment
of the High Court itself in G.J. Singh (supra) but also of this
Court in Harananda (supra). In fact, in Harananda (supra),
this Court held as follows:
24



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

16.3. Mr. Dave, learned senior counsel, extensively
referred to the report of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and
emphasized that mandate of the Sixth Central Pay
Commission was not only to evolve a proper pay package for
the Government employees but also to make recommendations
rationalizing the governmental structure with a view to
improving the delivery mechanisms for providing better
services to the common man. On the evolution, growth and
structure of OGAS, the Sixth Central Pay Commission
observed as under:
An organised Group A Central Service represents a
group of posts belonging to a distinct functional area
arranged in a hierarchical order and pyramidal manner
representing different grades or levels of responsibility.
These responsibility increases with each senior level. At
the time of the Second Central Pay Commission (CPC)
in 1957, there were 6 Group A non-technical Services
25


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

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



26


16.5. Recommendations of the Pay Commission were
clear and unambiguous, he submits. All posts upto the rank
of Deputy Inspector General (DIG) should be filled up by
promotion from amongst the officers of the respective CAPFs.
Not more than 50 percent of the posts in the grade of
Inspector General (IG)/equivalent and above should be
allowed to be filled up on deputation with the remaining posts
being filled up by way of promotion from amongst the eligible
officers.
16.6. Mr. Dave submits that Government of India,
Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) had
accepted the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay
Commission on 29.08.2008 to the effect that eligibility criteria
prescribed for promotion to Senior Administrative Grade in

various Group-A services should be uniform.
16.7. He submits that once the Central Government has
made a reference to the Central Pay Commission in respect of
Government employees and it had accepted the
recommendations, then it is bound to implement the
27


recommendations in respect of all Government employees. If
it does not implement the recommendations qua certain
categories of employees then it commits a breach of Article 14
and Article 16. In support of such submission, he has referred
to and has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in
4
Purushottam Lal Vs. Union of India .
16.8. Regarding the effect of an office memorandum, Mr.
Dave has referred to a decision of this Court in Laljee Dubey
5
Vs. Union of India , more particularly to paragraphs 16, 17
and 18 thereof.
16.9. In this connection, he has placed reliance on various
OMs by the DoPT dated 24.03.2009, 24.04.2009, 19.11.2009
and 15.12.2009, whereby and whereunder all the Central
Government Ministries and Departments were directed to
amend the existing service rules and to grant NFFU status
with effect from 01.01.2006.

4
(1973) 1 SCC 651
5
(1974) 1 SCC 230
28


16.10. He submits that while the Ministry of Railways had
complied with the judgment of this Court qua RPF, the other
ministries have been found to be remiss in doing so.
16.11. Mr. Dave further submitted that on 12.07.2019
respondent No. 4 had issued an OM concluding as under:
The RPF and Group A Executive Cadres of the following
CAPFs having been treated as Organised Group A
Service (OGAS) by this Department for cadre review and
other related matters accordingly:
(i) Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)
(ii) Border Security Force (BSF)
(iii) Central Industrial Security Force (CISF)
(iv) Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP)
(v) Shashstra Seema Bal (SSB)
16.12. In view of the above, first respondent is under an
obligation to implement the said OM.
16.13. Mr. Dave finally submits that it is a fit case where
all the civil appeals should be allowed and the respondents be
directed to forthwith implement the judgment of this Court in
Harananda (supra) as well as the OMs including the OMs
dated 19.11.2009 and 12.07.2019 and thereafter grant all the
29


consequential benefits to the appellants and similarly placed
officers including grant of NFFU with effect from 01.01.2006,
cadre review and amendment of the respective recruitment
rules providing for 100 percent promotion upto the level of
Senior Administrative (SAG) and 50 percent upto the level of
Higher Administrative Grade (HAG). Making an impassioned
plea, Mr. Dave submits that more than 18,000 officials of
CAPFs have been fighting this litigation and waiting for justice
since 2009. They are performing their duties in the service of
this country under most demanding and hostile conditions.
Over 153 of them have laid down their lives for defending the
unity and integrity of this country while discharging their
duties. It is unfortunate that the Central Government has
been found wanting in respect of granting relief to the
appellants as highlighted above.
17. Supporting the submissions of Mr. Dave, Mr. Shyam
Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in
Civil Appeal No. 13108 of 2024 highlighted that the
foundation of the case of the appellants is traceable to
30


paragraphs 23.4 and 23.8 of this Court’s decision in
Harananda (supra). Prayers made by the appellants are
required to be considered in the backdrop of what this Court
declared in Harananda (supra). He submits that DoPT has
fully accepted the Harananda (supra) judgment by issuing an
OM on 12.07.2019 requiring CRPF and the other four CAPFs
to be treated as OGAS for cadre issues and all other related
matters.
17.1. Unfortunately in the impugned judgment High
Court has completely ignored and made no reference to the
OM dated 12.07.2019 rendering the judgment patently
erroneous.
17.2. Despite the categorical finding of this Court and
declaration made that CAPFs are indeed OGAS and
acceptance of the same by the Union Government by way of
OM dated 12.07.2019, High Court in the impugned judgment
held that there was no general determination by this Court to
treat CAPFs as OGAS for all purposes. He submits that this
finding is wholly untenable. Such erroneous finding was the
31


fulcrum of the impugned judgment but the basis is no longer
valid in as much as Union of India has categorically
acknowledged and accepted the position that CAPFs are
indeed OGAS and in the light of the judgment in Harananda
(supra), there can be no further debate on this issue.
17.3. Learned senior counsel submits that it is the stated
policy of the Union Government that in respect of all OGAS,
promotion upto SAG level is within the service. The argument
of the respondents is that condition (iv) characteristics is
absent in the case of CRPF officers. This condition is no longer
relevant. Relevance of this condition is only at a stage anterior
to the declaration since the OM of 19.11.2009 was indicative
of certain characteristics. But now CRPF or for that matter all
the CAPFs are over that stage. Consequently all future cadre
reviews must be after the services rules are appropriately
realigned to comport with this Court’s judgment in
Harananda (supra).
18. Mr. S. Gurukrishna Kumar and Mr. K. Parameshwar,
learned senior advocates also argued on behalf of the
32


appellants. It is their submission that pursuant to the
declaration in Harananda (supra), it was incumbent on the
Union of India through its cadre controlling authority to treat
the CAPFs as OGAS. This was to be done following an exercise
of cadre review whereby the recruitment rules of the services
are amended every five years. It is further submitted that
when the RPF has been treated as OGAS, there is no reason
why the CAPFs should not be treated as OGAS. This is clearly
discriminatory. They have also highlighted the structure of
CISF as an example to illustrate as to how the service officers
are suffering stagnation due to lack of vacancies in the SAG
and above because of holding of such posts by officers
belonging to the IPS brought in by way of deputation.
19. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor
General of India representing Union of India and the official
respondents has made a subtle submission. According to her,
High Court in G.J. Singh (supra) and this Court in Harananda
(supra) had declared that CAPFs should be treated as OGAS
and consequently granted benefits arising from the
33


recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission i.e.
grant of NFFU. It was argued on behalf of Union of India that
CAPFs were not OGAS since they did not possess all the
attributes as required by the DoPT OMs. On the same
grounds, the Sixth Central Pay Commission had also not
recommended NFFU to the CAPFs. This Court declared that a
service can be an OGAS even if does not possess all the
attributes of an OGAS. Deputation of IPS officers is a minor
deviation which is allowed in terms of DoPT OM dated
19.11.2009. This Court however clarified that the decision in
Harananda (supra) will not affect the IPS
deputations/deputationists.
19.1. Learned Additional Solicitor General submits that
the above two judgments do not declare CAPFs as OGAS but
only declare that CAPFs in the past have been treated as
OGAS thus entitling them to the grant of NFFU. High Court
as well as this Court only directed the Central Government to
issue requisite notification granting the benefit of NFFU as
recommended by the Sixth Central Pay Commission to the
34


members of the CAPF. There are no further directions to take
consequential steps for making the CAPFs comply with all the
attributes of OGAS in terms of the DoPT OM dated
19.11.2009.
19.2. Turning to the impugned judgment she submits
that High Court was justified in holding that the claim of the
appellants do not flow from the said judgments. High Court is
right in holding that the appellants have failed to show that
the benefits of OGAS enures to them independent of the relied
upon judgments.
19.3. Learned Additional Solicitor General submits that
the present batch of appeals are nothing but an attempt to
reagitate the same grievance by seeking to inject the six
attributes in terms of the DoPT OM dated 19.11.2009 into the
CAPFs. The initial argument was that for declaring the CAPFs
as OGAS they did not posses all the six attributes in terms of
the OM dated 19.11.2009. In a complete u-turn, it is now
contended that since the CAPFs are OGAS they must possess
35


all the six attributes for which consequential directions
should be issued.
19.4. It is submitted that recruitment rules of each force
are formulated keeping in mind the peculiarity/functionality
of each of the services. Each of the CAPF has a different role
to play in the security scenario of the country. Functional
attributes of each of them cannot be identical. Therefore, it
does not follow from being declared as OGAS that all the
CAPFs must acquire all the six attributes.
19.5. The issue that came up for consideration in G.J.
Singh (supra) and Harananda (supra) was limited to grant of
NFFU which was initially denied on the ground that CAPFs
did not possess the six attributes required for designation as
an OGAS. It was the contention of the appellants in the
previous round that despite the deviations from the attributes
mentioned in the OM dated 19.11.2009, CAPFs had been
treated as OGAS and, as such, were entitled to grant of NFFU.
She submits that NFFU and Non-Functional Selection Grade
36


(NFSG) have been granted to all those officers who meet the
eligibility criteria.
19.6. She submits that the present batch of appeals is
premature. High Court the impugned judgment had
vide
given liberty to the appellants to file representations for cadre
review which was directed to be completed by June, 2021.
However because of the stay granted by this Court on
27.07.2020, the process has been kept in abeyance.
19.7. She has also highlighted the different functional
requirements of each of CAPFs and the allowances and
benefits availed of by them which are not available to other
OGAS. Therefore, in view of the peculiarity of different
services, complete uniformity across all services may not be
feasible or even desirable. Each service cannot have an
identical cadre structure. DoPT never intended this. The cadre
controlling authority, in this case Ministry of Home Affairs, in
consultation with the DoPT and the Department of
Expenditure determines the cadre structure and manpower
planning following laid down procedure. These decisions are
37


based on an organization’s specific needs. Decisions
regarding promotional prospects, application of the
deputation norm, etc. are part of executive policy making
guided by functional, operational, organizational and
personal requirements of the CAPFs.
19.8. Ms. Bhati submits that framing/ review of
recruitment rules is a legislative function whereas cadre
review exercise is an executive function. In a policy matter as
well as in a matter within the legislative field, this Court may
not issue any mandamus.
19.9. Recruitment rules of the CAPFs have been framed
keeping in view the functional requirement of each of the
CAPFs. Being an armed force of the Union, the purpose is to
keep each of the CAPFs fit for fighting as well as to ensure
coordinated action between the States and the Centre within
the federal framework of our country. Therefore, deputation
of IPS officers is necessary. Service conditions of CAPFs
cannot be structured like civilian OGAS. In the above
backdrop, Ministry of Home Affairs had sought exemption
38


from the DoPT for OMs dated 24.04.2009, 19.11.2009 and
15.12.2009. In its reply DoPT stated that the OGAS can be
broadly classified in four different categories, each having
some common features and some unique features. It is for the
cadre controlling authority to decide what is the appropriate
structure. OMs dated 24.04.2009 and 15.12.2009 were
issued prior to CAPFs being declared as OGAS. Now, CAPF
has emerged as a fifth category of OGAS. In this case DoPT
observed that: all the attributes of an OGAS perhaps cannot
be imposed on the CAPFs, as MHA being the cadre controlling
authority in case of CAPFs, is best aware of the functional
requirements of each component services within CAPF and
accordingly create a cadre structure that is ideally suited to
perform the function and tasks for which that service has
been set up and for its administration. Therefore, DoPT
concluded that there may not be a need to grant any formal
exemption from the operation of OMs dated 24.03.2009,
24.04.2009 and 15.12.2009 in respect of CAPFs, as sought
for by the MHA.
39


19.10. She submits that CAPFs are different from other
civilian OGAS as these are forces consisting of ground troops,
deployed at various locations for different purposes like
guarding and patrolling the border, internal security, law and
order, conducting elections and performing other important
duties. These are vital for national security. These ground
troops consist mostly of lower ranks from Constables upto
Inspectors. As a matter of fact, in CRPF, 98 percent of the
force is constituted by these ranks, 1.5 percent by GD officers
and 0.5 percent are others like doctors, ministerial,
engineering, etc. IPS officers are important part of this
hierarchy. Since CAPFs are deployed in various states, IPS
officers are essential for the effective operation of CAPFs
facilitating cooperation with the concerned State
Governments and their respective police forces thus
preserving the federal structure. IPS being an all India service,
both in respect of the Union and the States, a certain number
of posts in different police organizations and other
organizations of the Central Government are filled up by IPS
40


officers allotted to various state cadres on the basis of central
deputation for a tenure. IPS officers play a crucial role while
coordinating between the Central Government and the State
Governments.
19.11. She finally submits that Ministry of Home Affairs as
the cadre controlling authority is well aware of the functional
needs and has decided to maintain the current cadre
structure of CAPFs. Any change in the present structure of
CAPFs will have far-reaching implications. She submits that
taking an overall view of the matter, the present batch of
appeals may be dismissed.
20. Submissions were made on behalf of Indian Police
Central Service Association. Learned counsel representing the
association has supported the stand taken by the learned
Additional Solicitor General. It is submitted that IPS officers
are recruited keeping in view the demands of both the Central
Government and the State Governments. Accordingly, 40
percent of the sanctioned strength of IPS in a state cadre is
earmarked for central deputation reserve offering IPS officers
41


to the Central Government to man various police and other
organizations of the Central Government on deputation. IPS
officers play an important role in the overall internal security
architecture of the country besides coordinating between the
Central Government and the State Governments when CAPFs
are deployed.
20.1. Each recruitment rules of the different CAPFs
framed under their respective statutes provide for deputation
of IPS officers. These recruitment rules are statutory in
character and cannot be overridden by administrative
guidelines like the DoPT OM. Functional and operational
requirements of CAPFs necessitate deputation of IPS officers
bringing in valuable additions to internal security and law
and order duties, besides coordination with state police
forces. This Court in Harananda (supra) explicitly clarified
that its decision did not impact the rights of IPS officers for
deputation to CAPFs.
20.2. Learned counsel has also sought to distinguish
CAPFs from RPF. The two do not stand on the same footing.
42


20.3. He, therefore, submits that all the appeals being
misconceived, should be dismissed.
21. Similar submission was made on behalf respondent
No.5 who is an IPS officer and who got himself impleaded in
the present proceeding.
22. Submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties have received the due consideration of this Court.
23. As we have seen, the genesis of the dispute, rather
grievance of the appellants, started with the recommendations of
the Sixth Central Pay Commission. We have already examined
the relevant portion of the recommendations. Commission noted
that Group-A civil posts in the Central Government can be
broadly categorized into two: firstly, those included in OGAS
and those which are not part of OGAS and hence classified as
GCS Group-A. After an exhaustive analysis of grade
evaluation, growth and structure of OGAS, Commission noted
that through the mechanism of cadre review leading to cadre
restructuring, most OGAS have got more posts created at
Senior Administrative Grade and Higher Administrative
43


Grade levels. However, it was noted that notwithstanding
such cadre reviews and restructuring of service rules, most of
the services still had a great degree of stagnation at the level
of Senior Administrative Grade and Higher Administrative
Grade. Sixth Central Pay Commission noted the disparity as
far as appointment to various grades are concerned and
recommended that in order to bring in uniformity, eligibility
criteria should be uniform across various OGAS.
24. Ministry of Finance in the Department of Expenditure,
Government of India accepted the recommendations of the Sixth
Central Pay Commission submitted on 24.03.2008. As regards
the recommendations of the Commission that whenever any
Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer of a particular batch
is posted at the centre to a particular grade carrying a specific
grade pay in the pay bands of PB-3 or PB-4, grant of higher pay
scale on non-functional basis to the officers belonging to batches
of organized Group-A services that are senior by two years or
more should be given by the Government. This recommendation
was accepted by the Government of India with the further
44


clarification that this will also be applicable to the Indian Police
Service (IPS) and the Indian Forest Service (IFS) in their
respective state cadres for which the relevant cadre
controlling authority will issue the orders.
24.1. Another recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay
Commission that eligibility criteria prescribed for promotion
to Senior Administrative Grade in various Organized Group-A
Service (OGAS) should be uniform was also accepted by the
Government of India.
25. This takes us to the OM dated 24.03.2009 of the
DoPT which was issued to carry out the recommendations of
the Sixth Central Pay Commission. By the said OM, DoPT laid
down the steps that were required to be taken to amend the
existing service rules/recruitment rules of the different
services. All the ministries/departments were requested to
effect necessary amendments to the service rules/recruitment
rules by following the laid down procedure to bring the service
rules/recruitment rules in sync with the recommendations of
the Sixth Central Pay Commission.
45


26. DoPT issued another OM dated 24.04.2009 relating
to non-functional upgradation for officers of OGAS in Pay
Band-3 and Pay Band-4 consequent upon acceptance of the
recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission.
27. Now we come to the OM dated 19.11.2009 of the
DoPT which is by way of clarification qua attributes of OGAS.
We have already extracted relevant portion of the OM dated
19.11.2009. This OM was necessitated in view of large
number of representations being received either seeking
clarification about the attributes and definition of OGAS or
seeking grant of status as OGAS and consequential benefits
flowing therefrom. Cases were filed in different courts
claiming the status of OGAS and consequential benefits.
DoPT stated that attributes of an OGAS are clearly laid down
in existing monogram of cadre management published by the
DoPT. However, as a clarificatory measure, those attributes
were restated which we have extracted in the earlier part
of the judgment. Attribute No. (iii) says that atleast 50 percent
of vacancies in the Junior Time Scale (JTS) in such
46


services are required to be filled by direct recruitment. As per
attribute No. (iv), all the vacancies above JTS and upto Senior
Administrative Grade level in such services are to be filled up
by promotion from the next lower grade. In terms of
attribute No. (v) while a service may comprise one or more
distinct grades, all such cadres should be governed by
composite service rules facilitating horizontal and vertical
movement of officers of a particular cadre atleast up to the
level of Senior Administrative Grade. The cadre posts of an
organized service (OGAS) expressly belong to that service.
Attribute No. (vi) explains that such service consists of two
distinct components viz. Regular Duty Posts and Reserves.
Reserves are generally of four types: (i) Probationary Reserve
(ii) Leave Reserve (iii) Training Reserve and (iv) Deputation
Reserve. These reserves are usually created and accounted
for in the JTS. It was clarified that existing OGAS have evolved
over a period of time and may have minor deviations owing to
their respective functional requirements. Those services
47


which have already been declared as OGAS need not be
reviewed.
28. OM dated 15.12.2009 of DoPT deals with
amendment of the service rules/recruitment rules in OGAS
pursuant to recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay
Commission. It says that Sixth Central Pay Commission had
recommended for bringing uniformity in eligibility criteria
across various Organized Group-A Services (OGAS) for
promotion. The issue was examined whereafter a decision was
taken to amend the existing service rules/recruitment rules
by incorporating the following:
1. For promotion to SAG level, the requirement shall
be:
officers in the JAG with 8 years regular service in the
grade including NFSG or officers with 17 years
regular service in Group A posts in the service out of
which atleast 4 years regular service should be in
JAG (including service rendered in the NFSG of JAG).
1.1. Likewise, for promotion to HAG level, the
eligibility requirement shall be:
officers in the SAG with 3 years regular service in
the grade or officers with 25 years regular service in
48


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

29. OM dated 14.12.2010 deals with cadre review of
Central Group-A Services. Clause 5 (i) stipulates that every
cadre should be reviewed once in every five years. Review
should be first carried out by the cadre controlling authority
preferably in consultation with the representatives of the
services/cadre in question. Thereafter, the procedure for
cadre review is laid down.
30. This brings us to the decision of the High Court in
G.J. Singh (supra). The decision impugned in the writ
petitions was the rejection by the respondents of the request
of the petitioners belonging to CRPF, BSF and ITBP for grant
of NFFU as applicable to other Group-A officers. High Court
observed that the crux of the dispute was the classification of
the Central Government Group-A Services as organized or
otherwise and whether the officers of CAPFs are part of
Organized Group-A Services i.e. OGAS. High Court was of the
view that issue in those batch of writ petitions was not fixation
49


of pay scale but whether the Central Government had, at any
time, acknowledged or stated that such officers of CAPFs
formed a part of OGAS. High Court noted from an analysis of
the materials on record that the Central Government itself
had admitted way back on 29.10.1986 that BSF and CRPF
are organized services; rather used them as examples of
organized services. Thereafter, Central Government had
through its own process classified BSF, CRPF, ITBP and CISF
as being at par with each other in 1986, 1993 and 2010
monographs wherein the aforesaid CAPFs have been shown
as part of the same Group-A Central Civil Services. Referring
to the six attributes which the Central Group-A Services need
to possess in terms of the OM dated 19.11.2009 to be
considered as OGAS, High Court noted that as per the own
admission of the respondents, these attributes are merely
traits/characteristics and are not sacrosanct. Even the note
in the OM dated 19.11.2009 provides for minor deviations
from these attributes. Thereafter, High Court declared that
officers in PB-3 and PB-4 in the CAPFs belong to OGAS.
50


Hence, consequential benefit should be extended to them
including by way of NFFU. High Court held thus:
86. The issue of acknowledging the petitioners as OGAS
has been pending for some time like a festering wound.
From the preceding discussion, the Court would note
although from the government records it can clearly be
seen that the Petitioners have over and over again been
recognised as OGAS, an element of obfuscation has been
kept alive. It cannot be overemphasised that in matters
relating to the armed forces and the paramilitary/CAPFs
there ought to be clarity and certainty apropos the service
benefits which the forces would be entitled to. An element
of greater dispatch in taking decisions governing their
service conditions would always be requisite. Therefore,
to the extent that the OM dated 19/20.11.2009 and OM
dated 28.10.2010 themselves leave scope for
interpretation, it could well be said that there is a level of
arbitrariness in them. The government having repeatedly
acknowledged the Petitioners in their various
communications as belonging to OGAS cannot be allowed
to reprobate there from.
87. In view of the above, the Court is of the view that the
petitioners, i.e., officers in PB-3 and PB-4 in the CAPFs
(CRPF in the present instance) have been categorised
under Organised Group ‘A’ Service ever since the year
th
1986. Hence, the benefits contemplated by the 6 CPC
by way of NFFU to remove disparity between All India
51


Services and other Organised Central Group ‘A’ Services,
ought to be granted to them. Accordingly, the impugned
OM dated 28.10.2010 and all other letters whereby the
petitioners' request for the grant of NFFU was rejected,
cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed.
88. In view of the above, the Writ Petitions are allowed.
The respondents shall issue requisite notification
granting the benefits of Non Functional Financial
th
Upgradation as recommended by the 6 Central Pay
Commission to the Petitioners within eight weeks from
this order.

31. This came to be challenged by the Union of India in
Harananda (supra). This Court formulated the issue in the
appeals as being non-grant of NFFU to officers/employees
serving in the CRPF which was denied solely on the ground
that CRPF is not an OGAS and, therefore, not entitled to
NFFU. This Court noticed that considering the materials on
record, more particularly, the monographs published by the
DoPT right from 1996 till date, CAPFs have been shown as
part of the Central Group-A Services after conducting the
exercise of cadre review etc. by the DoPT. All throughout
CAPFs have been shown to be part of Central Group-A
52


Services. Therefore, it was not open to the DoPT not to
consider and/or treat the CAPFs as Organised Group-A
Services. This Court concluded that it cannot be said that
CAPFs do not constitute OGAS. Paragraphs 23.4 and 23.8,
being the fulcrum of the appellants case, are extracted
hereunder:
23.4. Considering the material on record, more
particularly, the Monographs published by the DoPT
right from 1986 till date, CAPFs have been shown to be a
part of the Central Group A Services. CAPFs have been
shown as a part of the Central Group A Services after
conducting the exercise of cadre review, etc. by the DoPT.
Therefore, all throughout from 1986 till date, in the
Monographs published by the DoPT, CAPFs have been
shown to be a part of Central Group A Services.
Therefore, thereafter it would not be open for the DoPT
not to consider and/or treat the CAPFs as an Organised
Group A Services.


23.8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the material on record, which came to be considered
by the High Court in detail, it cannot be said that CAPFs
do not constitute Organised Group A Central Civil
Services/Group A Central Civil Services.
53


31.1. In paragraph 24.2 of Harananda ( supra), this Court
held that High Court was right in observing and consequently
directing that officers in PB-3 and PB-4 in the CAPFs belong
to OGAS and, therefore, entitled to the benefits recommended
by the Sixth Central Pay Commission by way of NFFU, further
directing the respondents to issue requisite notification
granting NFFU to such officers of the CAPFs as recommended
by the Sixth Central Pay Commission. This Court declared
that it was in complete agreement with the view taken by the
High Court.
32. From the above, what is discernible is that
immediate grievance of the appellants in the aforesaid batch
of civil appeals was the rejection of their claim to NFFU, the
basis of such rejection being refusal of the Central
Government to treat the CAPFs as belonging to OGAS.
However, this Court while framing the issue for consideration
went to the root of the dispute and declared that for all intent
and purposes, CAPFs belong to OGAS. From a careful reading
of the judgment of this Court in Harananda (supra), we have
54


no doubt in our mind that such declaration by this Court was
not confined only to the grant of NFFU but in respect of the
status of the CAPFs as OGAS.
33. Following the same, DoPT issued OM dated
26.03.2019 calling upon the cadre controlling authorities for
the RPF and CAPF i.e. Ministry of Railways and Ministry of
Home Affairs respectively to send detailed modalities on all
issues/directions as per the decision of this Court in
Harananda (supra) in the matter of organized status and
consequential benefit of NFFU to enable implementation at
the earliest.
34. In this proceeding, we are not concerned with the
OM dated 08.04.2019 dealing with RPF. Nonetheless, it may
be mentioned that vide the said OM dated 08.04.2019 of the
Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, judgment of this Court
in Harananda (supra) has been implemented by taking the
relevant steps, such as, notifying RPF as OGAS, restructuring
of RPF cadre and to revise the recruitment rules of RPF in
55


consultation with the Union Public Service Commission
(UPSC). This was followed by OM dated 12.04.2019.
35. However, what is of crucial significance is the OMs
dated 04.07.2019 and 12.07.2019 of DoPT. Subject-matter of
OM dated 04.07.2019 is grant of benefit of NFFU and Non-
Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) to Group-A executive
cadre officers of CAPFs considered by the courts as belonging
to OGAS. The said OM mentioned that approval of
the competent authority has been conveyed to the grant of
OGAS to Group-A executive cadre officers of CAPFs and
consequently benefits of NFFU w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and NFSG
at the rate of 30% of Senior Duty Posts (SDP) w.e.f.
06.06.2000. Director Generals of CAPFs were therefore
directed to extend the benefits of NFFU and NFSG to the
eligible Group-A executive cadre officers of CAPFs by taking
immediate necessary action for implementation.
36. By way of the OM dated 12.07.2019, it was stated
that Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Railways vide
their respective letters dated 04.07.2019 and 11.07.2019 had
56


conveyed the approval of the competent authority to grant of
OGAS status to Group-A executive cadre officers of
CAPFs and RPF and consequential benefits of NFFU w.e.f.
01.01.2006 and NFSG @ 30% to Senior Duty Posts (SDP)
w.e.f. 06.06.2000 respectively. Further, it has been
mentioned that RPF and Group-A executive cadres of the
CAPFs have been treated as OGAS by the DoPT for cadre
review and other related matters. Relevant portion of the OM
dated 12.07.2019 reads as under:
2. In compliance of the above mentioned judgment dated
5.2.2019 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Ministry of
Home Affairs and Ministry of Railways vide their
references cited above, have conveyed the approval of the
competent authority to grant of OGAS status to RPF and
to Group A Executive Cadre Officers of CAPFs and
consequential benefits of NFFU with effect from 1.1.2006
and NFSG at 30% of Senior Duty Post (SDP) with effect
from 6.6.2000 respectively.
3. The RPF and Group A Executive Cadres of the following
CAPFs having been treated as Organised Group A service
(OGAS) by this Department for cadre review and other
related matters accordingly.
(i) Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)
(ii) Border Security Force (BSF)
57


(iii) Central Industrial Security Force (CISF)
(iv) Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP)
(v) Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB)

37. After issuance of OM dated 12.07.2019 treating the
CAPFs as OGAS for cadre review and other related matters,
the scope of the dispute has considerably narrowed down;
rather, we can say that there is hardly any dispute left now
for adjudication. Unfortunately, this OM dated 12.07.2019
was not taken note of by the High Court while disposing of the
related writ petitions filed by the appellants vide the
impugned judgment dated 27.07.2020. High Court had
rendered its judgment one year after the OM dated
12.07.2019 was issued. Failure to consider this OM has
materially affected the adjudication by the High Court.
38. Now that the scope of the lis has considerably
narrowed down, it will be useful to highlight the grievances
expressed by the appellants all this while. Since we have
focused primarily on Civil Appeal No.13104 of 2024 (Sanjay
Prakash and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.) which in turn is
concerned with CISF, we may have a glance at the posts in
58


the CISF in terms of hierarchy which is produced below in the
form of a statement:

39. Thus, we find that in the Junior Time Scale is the
post of Assistant Commandant; Deputy Commandant is in
the grade of Senior Time Scale. Commandant and Senior
Commandant are included in Junior Administrative Grade
with Senior Commandant being granted NFSG. Deputy
59


Inspector General (DIG) is placed in the Super Time Scale
Grade, whereas Inspector General (IG) is placed in the Senior
Administrative Grade (SAG). Therefore, posts upto Inspector
General are at the level of SAG or below. Additional Director
General (ADG) is placed in the Higher Administrative Grade
(HAG). The topmost post is Director General (DG).
40. According to the appellants, the existing Group-A
executive cadre of CISF mirrors a pyramid with fewer posts at
the top of the hierarchy in comparison to the number of posts
at the bottom. But the grievance is that the senior posts are
filled up mostly by way of deputation from amongst officers
belonging to the IPS. As one moves up in the hierarchy,
number of deputation posts in Group-A executive cadre
increases. In other words, it is the case of the appellants that
number of posts and the percentage of deputation are
inversely proportional. In this respect, appellants have placed
the following chart in tabular form depicting the cadre
structure and how the cadre posts are filled up:

60

41. Appellants have stated that their grievance qua
stagnation in service in contrast to the upward mobility of the
deputationists, being IPS officers who have far more lenient
and relaxed eligibility criteria for appointment in Group-A
executive cadre, has been taken note of by this Court in
Harananda (supra). Appellants have depicted the grievance
by way of a chart highlighting the differential requirement of
residency period for promotion and appointment against a
cadre post for cadre officers vis-a-vis deputationists. The
chart is as under:

61

42. Appellants have also illustrated their service
stagnation due to lack of vacancies by highlighting the same
in a tabular format which is as under:

62

43. Now that the Central Government has accepted that
CAPFs are included in OGAS, the natural consequences
should follow. Eligible officers belonging to the CAPFs have
already been granted NFFU following the decision of this
Court in Harananda (supra). DoPT OM dated 12.07.2019
makes it abundantly clear that the CAPFs have been treated
as OGAS for cadre issues and all other related matters. In
other words, CAPFs are OGAS for all purposes. When CAPFs
have been declared as OGAS, all benefits available to OGAS
should naturally flow to the CAPFs. It cannot be that they are
granted one benefit and denied the other.
44. However, we are conscious of the fact that the role
of CAPFs is crucial while maintaining security at the borders
63


of our country as well as in discharging internal security
duties. There are various issues connected with the
deployment of CAPFs, including coordinating with the State
Governments and the state police force. Central Government
in its wisdom has taken the view that presence of IPS officers
in each of the CAPFs is vital to maintain the character of each
of the CAPFs as a unique central armed force. This is a policy
decision. Of course, individual officers belonging to the IPS or
the association of IPS officers cannot have a say as to how
much the deputation quota should be and how long the
deputation should continue. They are there on deputation by
virtue of the policy decision of the Central Government
manifest through the service rules/recruitment rules of the
CAPFs. Having said that we cannot also be oblivious of the
grievance expressed by officers of the CAPFs as highlighted
supra. Their dedicated service upholding the security,
integrity and sovereignty of the nation while safeguarding our
borders and maintaining internal security within the country
cannot be ignored or overlooked. They discharge their duties
64


under very demanding conditions. They have a grievance that
because of lateral entry into the higher grades of the
respective CAPFs, they are unable to get their timely
promotion. Consequently, there is a great deal of stagnation.
Such stagnation can adversely impact the morale of the
forces. This also needs to be factored in while considering
review of such policy decision.
45. Having regard to the discussions made above and
now that Government of India has accepted the CAPFs as
belonging to OGAS vide the DoPT OM dated 12.07.2019, we
are of the view that the following directions would meet the
ends of justice. We, accordingly, order as follows:
1. Let the cadre review in all the CAPFs which
was due in the year 2021 be carried out within a
period of six months from today.
2. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India
shall give effect to the DoPT OM dated 12.07.2019
and undertake the exercise for review of the existing
service rules/recruitment rules of each of the CAPFs.
65


While carrying out the aforesaid exercise,
representative of the cadre officers of each of the
CAPFs shall be given an opportunity of being heard.
3. Let the above exercise pertaining to review
of existing service rules/recruitment rules of each of
the CAPFs be carried out and completed within a
period of six months from today.
4. DoPT shall take appropriate decision after
receipt of action taken report(s) from the Ministry of
Home Affairs regarding cadre review and review of
existing service rules/recruitment rules within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of
such report(s).
5. Keeping in mind the twin objectives of service
mobility of the cadre officers of CAPF thereby
removing stagnation on the one hand and the
operational/functional requirement of the forces on
the other hand, we are of the view that the number of
posts earmarked for deputation in the cadres of the
66


CAPFs upto the level of Senior Administrative Grade
(SAG) should be progressively reduced over a period
of time, say within an outer limit of two years.
6. This will bring in a sense of participation of
the cadre officers belonging to the CAPFs in the
decision making process within the administrative
framework of the CAPFs thereby removing the long
standing grievances of the cadre officers.
46. In view of the above, interim stay granted by this
Court on the exercise of cadre review stands recalled.
47. All the civil appeals are accordingly disposed of in
the above terms. However, there shall be no order as to cost.

……………………………J.
[ABHAY S. OKA]



……………………………J.
[UJJAL BHUYAN]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 23, 2025.
67