BSF Officer Gets Fresh Review For JAG Pay Upgrade After Delhi HC Says DG’s Displeasure Alone Cannot Bar NFFU

The Petitioner, a BSF officer, was dismissed following his conviction in an NDPS case, but was acquitted on appeal and later reinstated with the period of absence treated as duty for all purposes.

He subsequently received notional promotion as Deputy Commandant. When his batchmates were granted Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) in the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG), the Petitioner was not included.

The Respondents first stated that he lacked the required two years of Mandatory Field Service; after that requirement was met, Screening Committees assessed him unfit because of a DG’s Displeasure awarded in 2017.

The Petitioner challenged the denial, relying on decisions holding that displeasure cannot be used to deny promotion or NFFU.

Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 enumerates penalties; DG’s Displeasure is not one of them. The Ministry of Home Affairs’ Office Memorandum dated 27 March 2015 states that displeasure cannot be considered for denying promotion, though it may be considered by the reporting, reviewing or accepting authority when preparing an APAR; once the APAR is finalised, the displeasure becomes infructuous.

The DoPT OM dated 24 April 2009 requires officers seeking NFFU to meet the prescribed eligibility criteria and promotional norms, including the relevant benchmark.

In Dr. O.P. Nimesh v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12003, and Arun Kumar v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 8029/2019, the Delhi High Court held that displeasure cannot be used to deny promotion; Chander Sen Singh v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 11418/2024, and Mohit Pundeer v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 11452/2024, applied that principle to NFFU.

Although a Screening Committee has discretion to assess suitability, it must act consistently with applicable rules and instructions.

The Court found that, once the Petitioner had met the field-service requirement, the sole reason for denying NFFU was the DG’s Displeasure.

Since displeasure is not a prescribed penalty and the applicable authorities had held it could not bar promotion or NFFU, the Screening Committee could not rely on it as the basis for an adverse assessment.

The Court rejected the distinction between promotion and NFFU, reasoning that if displeasure cannot impede promotion, it cannot impede the related financial upgradation either.

The Committee’s discretion did not permit it to act contrary to the governing instructions.

If found fit, he must receive NFFU from the date it was granted to his batchmates, with all consequential benefits.