Supreme Court of India
SANJAY PRAKASH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 779
- Decided
- 23 May 2025
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ABHAY S OKA
Holding
CAPFs are declared as Organized Group‑A Services for all purposes, and consequently all benefits applicable to OGAS, including NFFU and cadre review, must be extended to them.
Summary
The appellants, officers of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), challenged the non‑recognition of their forces as Organized Group‑A Services (OGAS) and the consequent denial of benefits such as Non‑Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) and promotion opportunities. The Supreme Court examined earlier judgments, especially Harananda, and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memoranda that had already accepted CAPFs as OGAS for cadre review and related matters. It held that once the Government has accepted the OGAS status, all benefits applicable to OGAS must flow to CAPFs, and the High Court erred by ignoring the 12‑July‑2019 DoPT memorandum. The Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to implement the OM, carry out the pending 2021 cadre review, amend recruitment rules, and progressively reduce deputation posts up to the Senior Administrative Grade. The Court also recalled the interim stay on the cadre review and disposed of all the civil appeals.
Issues considered
- Whether the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) are to be classified as Organized Group‑A Services (OGAS) for all purposes.
- Whether the benefits available to OGAS, including Non‑Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) and promotion, must be extended to CAPFs.
- Whether the High Court erred in not considering the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 12‑July‑2019 that recognized CAPFs as OGAS.
- Whether the policy of deputation of IPS officers into CAPFs should be altered in light of OGAS status.
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) are included in Organized Group-A Service (OGAS); all benefits available to OGAS, if available to the CAPFs. Headnotes† Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) – CRPF, BSF, SSB, ITBP and CISF, collectively known as Service (OGAS) – All benefits available to OGAS, if available to the CAPFs – Grievances of the appellants- officers belonging to different CAPFs were non-recognition as OGAS, non-grant of Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) and service stagnation because of lateral entry by
Subjects
Central Armed Police ForcesOrganized Group-A ServiceNon-Functional Financial UpgradationCadre ReviewDeputationService StagnationSixth Central Pay CommissionOffice MemorandumPromotionRecruitment RulesPolicy Decision
Judgment
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2726 : 2025 INSC 779
Sanjay Prakash & Ors.
v.
Union of India & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 13104 of 2024)
23 May 2025
[Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) are included
in Organized Group-A Service (OGAS); all benefits available to
OGAS, if available to the CAPFs.
Headnotes†
Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) – CRPF, BSF, SSB, ITBP
and CISF, collectively known as CAPFs, whether included in
Organized Group-A Service (OGAS) – All benefits available to
OGAS, if available to the CAPFs – Grievances of the appellants-
officers belonging to different CAPFs were non-recognition
as OGAS, non-grant of Non-Functional Financial Upgradation
(NFFU) and service stagnation because of lateral entry by
way of deputation of IPS officers into the higher grades of
the respective CAPFs due to which they were unable to get
timely promotion – Plea of the appellants inter alia that DoPT
had accepted the judgment of this Court in Harananda by
issuing OM dtd. 12.07.2019 requiring CRPF and the other four
CAPFs to be treated as OGAS for cadre issues and all other
related matters; 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; that Ministry of
Finance had accepted the recommendations of the Sixth
Central Pay Commission to the effect that eligibility criteria
prescribed for promotion to Senior Administrative Grade in
various Group-A services should be uniform:
Held: CAPFs are OGAS for all purposes – Government of India
has accepted the CAPFs as belonging to OGAS vide the DoPT
OM dtd.12.07.2019 – Since, the Central Government has accepted
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2727
Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
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 – DoPT OM dtd.12.07.2019 makes it clear that the
CAPFs have been treated as OGAS for cadre issues and all other
related matters – 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 –
High Court did not take note of OM dtd. 12.07.2019 while disposing
of the writ petitions filed by the appellants vide the impugned
judgment – Cadre review to be carried out in all the CAPFs which
was due in the year 2021; Ministry of Home Affairs, Government
of India to give effect to the DoPT OM dtd.12.07.2019; review of
the existing service rules/recruitment rules of each of the CAPFs
be undertaken; number of posts earmarked for deputation in the
cadres of the CAPFs upto the level of Senior Administrative Grade
should be progressively reduced. [Paras 37, 43, 45]
Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) – Deputation of IPS
officers in each of the CAPFs – Review of policy decision:
Held: 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 – However, this
Court cannot also be oblivious of the grievance expressed by
officers of the CAPFs – Their dedicated service upholding the
security, integrity and sovereignty of the nation while safeguarding
borders and maintaining internal security within the country cannot
be ignored or overlooked – They discharge their duties 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. [Para 44]
Case Law Cited
Union of India v. Harananda (2019) 14 SCC 126; Purushottam
Lal v. Union of India (1973) 1 SCC 651; Laljee Dubey v. Union of
India [1974] 2 SCR 249 : (1974) 1 SCC 230 – referred to.
2728 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
G.J. Singh v. Union of India, 2015 SCC Online Del 11803;
Harananda v. Union of India, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 6001 –
referred to.
List of Keywords
Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF); Border Security Force
(BSF), Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB); Indo-Tibetan Border Police
(ITBP); Central Industrial Security Force (CISF); Central Armed
Police Forces (CAPFs), Central armed force; Organized Group-A
Service (OGAS); Service stagnation; Lateral entry; By way of
deputation; Deputation; Deputation of IPS officers into CAPFs;
Policy decision; Cadre review; Service rules of CAPFs; Recruitment
rules of CAPFs; Senior Administrative Grade level; Non-Functional
Financial Upgradation (NFFU); Sixth Central Pay Commission;
Group-A executive cadre.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13104 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2020 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No. 12751 of 2019
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 13105, 13106, 13107, 13108 and 13110 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
D u s h y a n t D a v e , G u r u K r i s h n a K u m a r, S h y a m D i v a n ,
K. Parameshwar, Sr. Advs., Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Abhisek Mohanty,
Vishnu Shankar Jain, Abhishek Puri, Sahil Grewal, Ankur Chhibber,
Ms. Surabhi Gupta, Mrs. Reeta Dewan Puri, P. N. Puri, Nishanth
Patil, Rishav Ambasta, M. V. Mukunda, Himanshu Gautam, Lokesh
Sharma, Chinmaya K Bhatt, Madhup Kumar Tiwari, Yashaswi Sk
Chocksey, Rajesh Kumar, Mukesh Kumar, Ms. Amrita Pandey,
Anuradha Pandey, Kishan Gautam.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G, Ms. Supriya Juneja, Ms. Aakanksha
Kaul, Amit Sharma B, Raghvendra S Srivastava, Adit Khorana,
Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Rajat Nair, Navanjay Mahapatra, Padmesh
Mishra, Rajesh Kumar Singh, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms. Shreya
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2729
Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Jain, Abhijeet Singh, Sriram Krishna, Nitin Bhardwaj, Satyam
Thareja, Ms. Vasundhara Nagrath, Shaurya Katoch.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
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.);
(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
2730 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
at each level upto Senior Administrative Grade being filled up
by way of deputation;
(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 in Union of India Vs. Harananda1
by which the decision of the High Court in G.J. Singh Vs. Union of
India2 has been affirmed.
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
1 (2019) 14 SCC 126
2 2015 SCC Online Del 11803
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2731
Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
per the report of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, Group A civil
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:
(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
2732 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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,
(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 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 Harananda Vs. Union of India3.
3 2012 SCC OnLine Del 6001
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2733
Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
11. All the civil appeals came to be disposed of by this Court vide the
judgment and order dated 05.02.2019 in Harananda (supra). There
were two groups of appeals. One 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 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 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
2734 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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.
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2735
Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
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.
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
2736 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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 a requisite notification granting
the benefits of NFFU as recommended by the 6th
Central Pay Commission, it cannot be said that the
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2737
Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
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 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 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
2738 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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
each Central Armed Police Force including qua Cadre
Structure, Residency, Deputation etc.
(II) By directing the Ministry of Home Affairs to, in compliance
of the DoPT OMs dated 31st December, 2010 and 8th
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2739
Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
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 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
concluded on or before 30th 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.
2740 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 (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,
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2741
Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
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 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:
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
2742 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 (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.
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.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2743
Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
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
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 Purushottam Lal Vs. Union of India4.
16.8. Regarding the effect of an office memorandum, Mr. Dave
has referred to a decision of this Court in Laljee Dubey Vs.
Union of India5, 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.
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
4 (1973) 1 SCC 651
5 (1974) 1 SCC 230
2744 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2745
Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
(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 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 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
2746 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2747
Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
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 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 (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 vide the impugned judgment had 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
2748 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and manpower planning following laid down procedure. These
decisions are 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 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.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2749
Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
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 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 to the Central Government to man various police and other
organizations of the Central Government on deputation. IPS officers
2750 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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.
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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2751
Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
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 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.
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
2752 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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 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).
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2753
Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
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 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 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. Hence, consequential benefit
2754 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
1986. Hence, the benefits contemplated by the 6th CPC
by way of NFFU to remove disparity between All India
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 Upgradation as
recommended by the 6th 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2755
Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
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 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.
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.
2756 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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 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.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2757
Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
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 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)
(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.
2758 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 the CISF in terms of hierarchy which is produced below in
the form of a statement:
Grades CORRESPONDING RANKS IN
CISF OTHER CAPFs
Apex Grade Director General (DG)
Higher Administrative Additional Director General (ADG)
Grade (HAG)
Senior Administrative Inspector General (IG)
Grade (SAG)
Super Time Scale Deputy Inspector General (DIG)
Junior Administrative Senior Commandant
Grade (NFSG) Commandant
Junior Administrative Commandant Second in
Grade (JAG) Command (2IC)
Senior Time Scale Deputy Commandant (DC)
(STS)
Junior Time Scale Assistant Commandant (AC)
(JTS)
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 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).
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2759
Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
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:
Rank Total Division of Group A Executive Cadre
positions posts
As percentage Numbers
Deputation Cadre Deputation Cadre
DG 1 100% Excluded 1 0
ADG 4 75% 25% 3 1
IG 16 50% 50% 8 8
DIG 67 30% 70% 20 47
Sr. 81 Promotion failing NIL 81
Commandant which by deputation
Commandant 125 NIL 125
Deputy 344 2% 98% NIL 344
Commandant absorption
failing
which by
promotion
Assistant 639 2% 98% NIL 639
Commandant absorption
failing
which by
promotion
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
2760 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of residency period for promotion and appointment against a cadre
post for cadre officers vis-a-vis deputationists. The chart is as under:
Promotion Total qualifying Central Deputation
service (in for IPS
years) required
for promotion in
From To CISF as per Level Minimum
existing RRs length of
(GCS Group A) service in
the IPS for
eligibility
for central
deputation
ADG DG Excluded DG 30
IG ADG 30 ADG 26
DIG IG 24 IG 18
Senior DIG 20 DIG 14
Commandant
Commandant Senior 15*
Commandant SP 7
DC Commandant 11
AC DC 06 - -
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:
Rank Total Cadre No. of officers eligible for promotion
Positions to the rank in Column (1) but
(1)
stagnating due to lack of vacancies,
(2)
eligibility reckoned under existing
recruitment rules
From the next Based on years
lower rank of service
DG 0 1. Rules for promotion to the rank of
DG yet to be framed.
2. Eligible CISF officer not promoted
to the rank of ADG though vacancy
exists
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2761
Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
ADG 1 8 13
IG 8 59 72
DIG 47 52 53
Sr. 81 21 21
Commandant
Total Officers stagnating from 140
Batches 1987 – 2005
Total Cadre Officers from Batches 153
1987 – 2005
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 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
2762 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
or overlooked. They discharge their duties 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. 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 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.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2763
Sanjay Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
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.
Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Central Armed Police Forces"Sign in to search