# Sanjay Prakash & Ors v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 779
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-05-23
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 13104 of 2024
- **Bench:** Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sanjay-prakash-ors-v-union-of-india-ors-38387
- **Pages:** 38

## Headnote

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 appellantsofficers 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. [

## Text

_Characters 0–39,713 of 79,280. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39713 for what follows._

[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 appellantsofficers 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:
Dushyant Dave, Guru Krishna Kumar, Shyam Divan,
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. 1560039100 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.