1

NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1474/2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) NO. 12393 of 2013)

Union of India & Ors.                                       …..  …Appellants

Versus

Sri Harananda & Ors.                                    ………Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1475­81 of 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 35548­35554/2015),
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1482 of 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 13937/2016),
SLP (C) ……………CC No. 5735/2016
SLP (C) ……………CC No. 5736/2016
SLP (C) ……………CC No. 5737/2016
SLP (C) ……………CC No. 5738/2016
SLP (C) ……………CC No. 5743/2016
SLP (C) ……………CC No. 5742/2016
SLP (C) ……………CC No. 5740/2016

J U D G M E N T

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions (C) No.12393/2013,

35548­35554/2015 and 13937/2016. All these appeals are being
Signature Not Verified

disposed of by this common judgment.   
Digitally signed by
SUSHIL KUMAR
RAKHEJA
Date: 2019.02.05
17:42:09 IST
Reason:
 2

2. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned

judgment and order dated 4.12.2012 passed by the High Court of

Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 6314 of 2012, the Union of India

and   others   have   preferred   the   Civil   Appeal   @   SLP   (C)   No.

12393/2013.

2.1 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned

judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   dated

3.9.2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 153 of 2013 and other allied writ

petitions,   the   Union   of   India   and   others   have   preferred   the

present Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos.35548­35554/2015.

2.2 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned

judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   dated

15.12.2015 in Writ Petition(C) No.3529/2015, the Union of India

and   others   have   preferred   the   present   Civil   Appeal   @   SLP(C)

No.13937/2016.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12393 of 2013

3. The facts leading to the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C)

No.   12393   of   2013   arising   out   of   the   impugned   judgment   and

order passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 4.12.2012 in Writ

Petition (C) No. 6314 of 2012, are as under.
 3

3.1 The   original   Writ   Petitioners   –   who   are   the   RPF   Officers

holding Group “A” posts approached the High Court by filing the

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with

the following reliefs/prayers:

(a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents

to complete the formalities for constituting the RPF as an

Organized Service within a definite time frame with further

direction to extend the benefits by giving effect to the RPF

Recruitment Rules already approved by the Respondent No.

1   as   communicated   vide   letter   dated   01.03.2005   to

Respondent No. 2 and to treat Group “A” Railway Officers

recruited through Civil Service Examination in all respect.

(b) Issue   further   direction   to   the   Respondents   to   apply

with retrospective effect all policy circulars to the petitioners

as applicable in respect of other Group A Railway Services

bringing   them   at   par   with   their   batch   mates   recruited

through civil service examinations and grant promotion to

the Petitioners and other similarly situated officers on that

basis   with   all   co­sequential   benefits   including   the   back

wages.
 4

(c) Issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records, and

other/direction (including those not communication to the

Petitioner,   if   any,   by   way   of   which   the   Respondents   have

taken a decision to initiate the process to fill any vacancy in

the RPF through deputation against the statutory provisions

and thereafter quash the same.

3.2 It was the case on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners that

all the writ petitioners are the Officers holding Group “A” posts in

the Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred as to the ‘RPF’)

and   all   of   them   were   recruited   through   the   Civil   Services

Examination conducted by the UPSC along with 15 other Group

“A”   Central   Services,   including   three   Group   “A”   Railways

Services,   i.e.   Indian   Railway   Traffic   Service,   Indian   Railway

Accounts   Service   and   Indian   Railway   Personnel   Service.

According to the Writ Petitioners, as per the Gazette Notification

published by the Government of India, based on which the UPSC

conducts an examination, these Railway services have been kept

at par with each other.  According to the original Writ Petitioners,

the   notification   and   the   offer   of   appointment   as   well   as   the

Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (for short ‘the RPF Act, 1957’)

clearly   stipulate   the   Officers   of   RPF   as   Railway   Servants   with

stipulation that in addition to the Indian Railway Establishment

Code applicable to the Railway servants, the Officers of RPF will

be governed by the provisions contained in the RPF Act and RPF

Rules,  1959   as  well as   the new RPF Rules, 1987, Recruitment

Rules 1981 and 1994.

3.3 It was the case on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners that

in spite of the consistent stand taken by the Ministry of Railways

that the officers of the RPF have all the attributes of Organized

Service and they should be constituted as Organized Service, the

original Respondent No. 1 – Union of India through Ministry of

Railways   and   Department   of   Personnel   and   Training   (Cadre

Review Division) [for short ‘DoPT’], for one reason or the other,

have taken a final decision in this respect resulting in large scale

stagnation of the officers of RPF, like the Writ Petitioners, at every

rank.

3.4 It   was   the   case   on   behalf   of   the   original   Writ   Petitioners

that,   starting   from   1981   to   1996,   various   amendments   were

brought out in the RPF Act as well as the Rules by which initially

the   proportion   of   deputation   was   reduced   and   finally   by

amendment in the Recruitment Rule, RPF Rules and by bringing

in amendment in the Principle Act, 1957, by Section 19 of the

Amendment Act, 1985, deputation was debarred by giving only

two   options   to   the   existing   officers   on   deputation   either

repatriation in their parent cadre or to accept retirement.

3.5 According   to   the   original   Writ   Petitioners,   “in   principle”

decision   taken   by   the   Railway   Board   in   the   year   1986   to

constitute RPF as an Organized Service and referred the matter

to the DoPT (Cadre Review Division) for its approval.   According

to   the   original   Writ   Petitioners,   thereafter,   through   O.M.   dated

12.7.2001,  the   Ministry  of Railways forwarded the proposal for

deeming   the   RPF   as   an   Organized  Service to   be  known  as  the

Indian   Railway   Protection   Force   Service.     According   to   the

original   Writ   Petitioners,   thereafter,   the   DoPT   (Cadre   Review

Division)   considering   all   aspects,   by   Communication   dated

20.11.2003,   communicated   in   principle   approval   to   constitute

RPF as Organized Group “A” Central Service (for short ‘OGACs’).

According to the original Writ Petitioners, thereafter, the Ministry

of Railways, vide Communication dated 1.3.2005, forwarded the

draft   Recruitment   Rules   for   Indian   Railway   Protection   Force

Service   on   the   lines   of   other   Organized   Group   “A”   Central

Services   of   Railways   after   due   approval   of   the   Ministry   of

Railways   being   the   competent   authority.       According   to   the

original   Writ   Petitioners,   thereafter,   during   2005­2010,   various

steps were taken for bringing necessary changes to improve the

service   condition   of   the   RPF   officers   and   to   bring   them   at   par

with other Railway Services, but the same did not result in any

meaningful solution, as a result of the same, the RPF officers like

the   Writ   Petitioners   kept   on   stagnating   in   the   same   post   and

suffered.   

3.6 According to the original Writ Petitioners, several meetings

were   held   by   the   Railway   Board   to   resolve   the   issue,   but   no

effective   steps   were   taken   and   the   original   Respondents

continued to fill the vacancies available with them by calling the

officers   on   deputation,   even   when   the   eligible   officers   were

available   and   in   spite   of   the   statutory   prohibition   in   force.

Therefore,   the   original   Writ   Petitioners   approached   the   High

Court and prayed for the aforesaid reliefs.

3.7 That by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court,

after having noted and considered the O.M. dated 20.11.2003, by

which in principle decision was taken to constitute the RPF as

OGACs, has directed that within six months the necessary cadre
 8

structure   of   RPF   as   also   the   Service   Rules   be   finalized   with

reference to the RPF being an OGACs.  The High Court has also

further observed and directed the Cabinet Secretary to nominate

a   Nodal   Officer   to   coordinate   within   the   three   bodies,   namely,

UPSC, DoPT and Ministry of Railways.

3.8 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   direction

contained in the impugned judgment and order dated 4.12.2012,

the Union of India and others have preferred the present Appeal.

4. Shri Aman  Lekhi,  learned ASG has appeared on behalf of

the Union of India, Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel has

appeared on behalf of the Respondents – original Writ Petitioners

and Shri Luthra, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the

Indian Police Service Central Association.   

4.1 Shri Lekhi, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Union of

India   has   vehemently   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has

materially   erred   in   issuing   the   Mandamus   relying   on   the   “in

principle” approval granted by the DoPT for constituting the RPF

as   OGACs   in   its   O.M.   dated   20.11.2003.     It   is   vehemently

submitted that the findings arrived at by the High Court that the

“in   principle”   approval   was   granted   by   the   DoPT,   is   clearly

erroneous as the same O.M. specifically stipulated in paragraph
 9

2 that the proposal will have to be placed before the Cadre Review

Committee   for   its   approval   just   like   a   normal   cadre   review

proposal for further processing by DoPT.  

4.2 It is further submitted that even the said proposal was also

based   upon   a   clearly   erroneous   O.M.   dated   12.7.2001   by   the

Ministry   of   Railways,   in   which   it   was   wrongly   stated   that

“Administration/Administrative   Grade   are   filled   by   promotion

from   next  lower   grade”  in RPF.     Shri Lekhi, learned ASG  has

brought the attention of this Court to various grades and their

corresponding   posts.   It   is   submitted   that   there   are   various

grades,   such   as,   (1)   Higher   Administrative   Grade;   (2)   Senior

Administrative Grade; (3) Junior Administrative Grade; (4) Senior

Time   Scale   and   (5)   Junior   Time   Scale.     It   is   submitted   that

Attribute of the Monograph of 1993 required that all posts from

Junior Time Scale to Senior Administrative Grade level should be

filled by promotion.  It is submitted that the same is not satisfied

by RPF as there is a provision for deputation at the posts of DIG

and IG.  

4.3 It is further submitted by Shri Lekhi, learned ASG that the

Cadre Review Committee, in its meeting dated 2.3.20087, in fact

referred the matter to Committee of Secretaries on Cadre Review
 10

on the proposal of RPF.     It is submitted that the Committee of

Secretaries, vide its meeting dated 5.9.2007 decided to deal with

the   two   issues   of   cadre   review   of   RPF   and   granting   status   of

OGACs   to   RPF.     It   is   submitted   that   in   the   Minutes   of   the

Meeting, it was specifically stated that the Secretary, DoPT will

consult   the   Chairman,   Railway   Board.     It   is   submitted   that,

therefore, the constitution of RPF as OGACs was specifically not

granted.   It is submitted that, pursuant thereto, on 30.11.2007,

DoPT had requested the Railway Board to send a revised cadre

review   proposal   to   address   the   aspect   of   promotional   avenues

and   on   constitution   of   RPF   as   OGACs.     It   is   submitted   that,

thereafter,   the   proposal   was   forwarded   by   the   Ministry   of

Railways   on   7.3.2013   and   the   same   was   examined   in

consultation with the Department of Expenditure.  It is submitted

that   the   proposal   was   then   considered   by   the   Cadre   Review

Committee on 29.7.2013 and the Committee did not recommend

OGACs status in view of the recommendations of 6 th CPC and the

concerns expressed by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

4.4 It is further submitted that, in any event, the RPF did not

satisfy   Attribute   (iv)   of   Monograph   of   1993   or   the   O.M.   dated

19/20.11.2009.   It is submitted that neither Monograph of 1993
 11

nor   O.M.   dated   19/20.11.2009   was   challenged   by   the   Writ

Petitioners.   It is submitted that, therefore, consequently, in the

absence   of   RPF   satisfying   the   above   Attribute,   there   was   no

occasion   for   the   High   Court   to   issue   Mandamus   for   grant   of

status of OGACs.   

5. It is further submitted by Shri Lekhi, learned ASG that even

the   reliance   placed   on   the   draft   Service   Rules   forwarded   vide

O.M. dated 1.3.2005 is clearly erroneous inasmuch as the High

Court   ignored   the   meeting   of   CRC   and   COS,   DoPT

Communication of 13.11.2007 and the CRC Meeting of 29.7.2013

apart from the Recruitment Rules and the attributes of OGACs.   

5.1 It is submitted that, therefore, while the foundational facts

for grant of relief have not been satisfied, the right itself in RPF

was not established and, therefore, there was no occasion for the

enforcement of the same through the Writ of Mandamus.   

5.2 It is further submitted by Shri Lekhi, learned ASG that the

High   Court   could   not   have   been   able   to   create   OGACs   on   the

basis of certain notes, correspondence and the letters issued by

the DoPT, Government of India, for it is the Home Department

which   has   the   jurisdiction/authority   under   the   RPF   Act,   1957

and   other   relevant   Laws.       In   support   of   his   submission   that

Ministry   of   Home   Affairs   is   the   only   competent   authority   to

determine   the   grant   of   OGACs,   Shri   Lekhi,   learned   ASG   has

relied upon Section 8 of the RPF Act, 1957.  Relying upon Section

3 and Section 8 of the RPF Act, it is submitted that once the RPF

is   an   Armed   Force   of   the   Union,   any   decision   that   has   to   be

taken,   is   required   to   be   taken   by   the   Home   Department   and,

ultimately, it has to travel through the Cabinet for its acceptance

and notification. 

5.3 It is further submitted by Shri Lekhi, learned ASG and Shri

Luthra,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   IPS

Association   that   even   there   are   statutory   rules   under   the   RPF

Act, 1957 which provides for deputation into RPF.  Reliance was

placed upon Rules 54 and 76 of the RPF Rules.  It is submitted

that if the cadre to which the original Writ Petitioners belong is

declared as OGACs, then there cannot be any deputation and no

one from the cadre of IPS can come on deputation and it is likely

to give parallel two system within the force establishment.  

5.4 It is further submitted by the learned ASG and Shri Luthra

that, thus, there is a statutory provision for deputation from IPS

as provided under the RPF Rules.  It is submitted that an IPS is

an All India Service under Article 312 of the Constitution and is
 13

deemed to be “necessary and expedient in the national interest”

under Article 312 (2).  It is submitted that this service is common

to   the   Union   and   States   and   is   therefore   peculiarly   suited   for

Armed Forces of the Union, which though created by the Centre,

can be yet made available in aid of civil power of State despite

“Public   Order”   being   State   subject.     It   is   submitted   that,

therefore,   the   scheme   is   consistent   within   the   framework

conceived by the Constitution, apparent in Article 312 and Entry

2A of the Union List and Entries 1 and 2 of the State List.  It is

further   submitted   by   the   learned   ASG   that   the   security   of   the

railway   property   is   integral  to  the maintenance  of public order

considering   the   importance   of   the   network   in   ensuring

connectivity and removing isolation as also providing a cheap and

convenient   mode   of   transport   apart   from   having   a   role   in

development of agriculture and industry.       It is submitted that

RPF cannot, therefore, be treated any different from CAPFs. 

5.5 Relying   upon   Rule   106   of   IREC,   it   is   submitted   that   the

railway service is classified as the gazetted and non­gazetted.  It

is   submitted   that   Rule   108   provides   for   establishments   and

categories falling under the services mentioned in Rule 106.  It is

submitted   that   a   combined   reading   of   the   two   rules   make   it

apparent   that   the   RPF   is   not   included   in   the   list   of   Railway

Service.   In support of the above submission, he has also relied

upon Rule 103(43) of IREC.   It is submitted that, therefore, the

DoPT cannot be excluded altogether from the affairs of RPF.   

5.6  It   is   further   submitted   that   in   fact   the   deputation   to   the

RPF, being members of All India Services, cannot be under the

administrative control of the Railway Board.  It is submitted that

the   Second   Schedule   of   the   Allocation   of   Business   Rules   itself

stipulates under Item 42(a) that the general policy questions of

career planning and manpower planning of the All India Services

and Central Government Services is the subject matter of DoPT.

By virtue of the same, DoPT functions as the Secretariat for the

Cadre   Review   Committee   which   is   chaired   by   the   Cabinet

Secretary.   It is submitted that, therefore, neither the DoPT be

kept  out   of   the   affair   of   RPF   nor   can  the   Ministry   of  Railways

claim exclusive control over the affairs of the RPF.  

5.7 Making the above submissions, it is submitted that as there

was no enforceable right in favour of the original Writ Petitioners,

more   particularly,   in   the   absence   of   any   final   approval   of   the

DoPT   and/or   Ministry   of   Home   Affairs,   the   High   Court   is   not

justified in issuing the Mandamus.  In support of the above, Shri
 15

Lekhi, learned ASG has relied upon the decision of this Court in

the case of State of Kerala v. Lakshmikutty (1986) 4 SCC 632.

5.8 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above

decision  of  this   Court,  it  is prayed to quash and set aside the

impugned   judgment   and   order   dated   4.12.2012   passed   by   the

High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 6314 of 2012.

6. The present Appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Patwalia,

learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the original Writ

Petitioners.  It is vehemently submitted by him that, as such, the

present Appeal is not maintainable at all as the same is against

the   impugned   judgment   and   order   which   is   a   consent   order

passed by the High Court only after counsel of the parties agreed

that   the   High   Court   can   dispose   of   the   matter   by   issuing

necessary directions. It is submitted that, therefore, after counsel

of the parties including counsel for Appellant no. 2 have agreed

for   issuance   of   direction   and,   thereafter,   when   the   High   Court

has disposed of the writ petition in terms of the agreement, then

the appeal is not maintainable.

6.1 It   is   further   submitted   by   the   learned   Senior   counsel

appearing on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners that even the

present Appeal at the instance of the Ministry of Home Affairs is
 16

not   maintainable   inasmuch   as   the   Ministry   of   Home   Affairs   is

neither a necessary party nor was a party before the High Court.

It   is   submitted   that   the   Union  of  India  which   was  represented

through   the   Ministry   of   Railways   has   not   challenged   the

judgment and order of the High Court and the Ministry of Homer

Affairs   is   a   complete   stranger   and   has   no  locus   standi  to

challenge the order of the Division Bench of the High Court.

6.2 It   is   further   submitted   by   the   learned   senior   counsel

appearing   on   behalf   of   the   original   Writ   Petitioners   that   the

Ministry of Home Affairs is not at all concerned with the Group

‘A’ Cadre of RPF inasmuch as in terms of Government of India

(Allocation   of   Business)   Rules,   1961,   Ministry   of   Railways   is

empowered to deal with all matters of Railways, including RPF.  It

is   submitted   that   the   aforesaid   Rules   would   show   the   list   of

Police Organizations which are part of allocation of business of

Ministry of Home Affairs.   It is submitted that the list does not

contain the name of RPF to whom the original Writ Petitioners

belong.   It is submitted that even the Ministry of Railways has

accepted the impugned judgment and order and, in fact, has also

taken steps to implement the impugned directions. It is further

submitted   that   the   decision   of   the   High   Court,   which   is   in

consonance   with   the   statutory   Rules   and   equitable,   has   been

accepted   by   the   Ministry   of   Railways,   which   is   a   Cadre

Controlling Ministry.

6.3 It   is   further   submitted   by   the   learned   senior   counsel

appearing   on   behalf   of   the   original   Writ   Petitioners   that,   even

otherwise,   on   merits   also,   the   impugned   judgment   and   order

passed by the High Court is not required to be interfered by this

Court.     It   is   submitted   that   after   careful   consideration   ‘in

principle’   decision   was   taken   by   the   Ministry   of   Railways   to

consider and treat the RPF as OGACs and the High Court has

committed no error in issuing the directions, more particularly,

when for number of years, no final decision/approval was taken

and   the   original   Writ   Petitioners   and   the   members   of   RPF

suffered.

6.4 Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the original

Writ Petitioners has drawn our attention to the report filed by the

Second   Administrative   Reforms   Commission   submitted   in   the

year 2008.  It is submitted that the said Commission after writing

a Preface on the various aspects has emphasised on the need for

reforms. It is submitted that the said report states about a table

which   incorporates   all   the   Organized   Group  “A”  Central   Civil

Services in the Government of India.  It is submitted that in Item

Nos. 15, 22, 23, 24 and 25, the services which find places are

RPF, Boarder Security Force, Central Industrial Security Force,

Central Reserve Police Force and the Indo­Tibetan Border Police

respectively.  It is submitted that the said list was drawn having

its source from DoPT.

6.5 Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the original

Writ Petitioners has also drawn our attention to the cadre review

of Group  “A”  Central Civil Services done by the Government of

India,   Ministry   of   Personnel,   Public   Grievances   and   Pensions,

DoPT in 2010.   It is submitted that detailed deliberations were

held with the Cadre Controlling Authorities to identify areas that

need to be improved upon while conducting cadre reviews and,

based on the  discussions, guidelines came to be revised and a

new   Monograph   on   Cadre   Management   of   Central   Group  “A”

Services   has   been   prepared.       It   is   submitted   that   the   revised

Monograph on Cadre Review specifically provide that the RPF is

an OGACs.

6.6  Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the original

Writ Petitioners has further drawn the attention of this Court to

the O.M. dated 14.12.2010 issued by the Ministry of Personnel,
 19

Public   Grievances   and   Pensions,   Department   of   Personnel   and

Training,   which   deals   with   the   consolidated   guidelines   on   the

cadre   review   of   Central   Group  “A”  Services.     It   submitted   that

Annexure   1   to   the   said   O.M.   gives   list   of   Central   Group   “A”

Services category wise.   It is submitted that the first category is

non­technical services, the second is technical services, the third

is   health   service   and   the   fourth   one,   other   services.     It   is

submitted that the other services include CRPF, CISF, BSF and

ITBP   and   non­technical   services   includes   RPF.   It   is   submitted

that,   therefore,   once   the   O.M.   has   been   issued   accepting   the

position,   it   cannot   be   stated   that   the   same   was   based   on   the

office   notes   or   a   policy   decision,   as   has   been   argued   by   the

learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Union of India.

6.7 It   is   therefore   submitted   by   the   learned   Senior   counsel

appearing on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners that the High

Court is justified in issuing the Writ of Mandamus and observing

that the benefit of non­functional financial up­gradation granted

to the OGACs should be granted to the original Writ Petitioners,

as the cadre has been reviewed and the distinction between the

organized and non­organized cadres has already melted.
 20

6.8 Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the original

Writ Petitioners has also relied upon Section 10 of the RPF Act,

1957 in support of his submission.   He has submitted that the

Director General is the competent authority and not the Ministry

of Home Affairs.

7. Now, so far as the submission made on behalf of the Union

of   India   through   the   Ministry   of   Home   Affairs   and   the   IPS

Association that if the RPF is considered as OGACs cadre, in that

case, the same shall be contrary to the statutory provisions with

respect to filling up the posts on deputation.  Reliance has been

placed   upon   Section   19   of   the   Railways   Protection   Force

(Amendment)   Act,   1985.     It   is   submitted   that   the   aforesaid

provisions clearly prohibit any deputation to the Group ’A’ post.

It is submitted that as to whether a person can be appointed on

deputation   to   the   Group  “A”  post   in   RPF,   the   same   has   been

examined by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 6081 of

2010 and after the relevant provisions of the RPF (Amendment)

Act and Rules, the High Court of Delhi has observed that there

cannot   be   any   deputation   and/or   the   posts   in   the   Railway

Protection Services cannot be filled up on deputation basis.  It is
 21

submitted   that   the   said   judgment   has   been   accepted   by   the

Ministry of Railways.

8. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the original

Writ Petitioners has also heavily relied upon the decision of this

Court in the case of Prabhat Ranjan Singh v. R.K. Kushwaha

in   Civil  Appeal  No.   9176   of  2018 on the  power  of DoPT.   It is

submitted that, in the aforesaid decision, this Court has observed

that the Railways is not bound by the memorandum issued by

DoPT and are empowered to frame its own rules to lay down the

service conditions of its employees.  

9. Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the

present Appeal.

10. Heard   the   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the

respective parties at length.

10.1 The short question which is posed for consideration before

this Court is, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,

the   High   Court   has   committed   any   error   in   treating   and/or

considering the O.M. No. 96/E(GR)I/16/I dated 8.5.2003 of the

DoPT,   Government   of   India   as   ‘in   principle’   decision   for

constitution   of   the   RPF   as   an   Organized   Group   “A”   Central

Service   and   thereby   directing   to   take   further   steps   of   Cadre

Structure   of   RPF   as   also   to   finalize   the   Service   Rules   with

reference to the RPF being an Organized Group “A” Central Civil

Service?

10.2 At   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that,   from   the

impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court,   it

appears   that   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   is   a   consent

order, passed by the High Court only after counsel for the parties

agreed that the Court can dispose of the matter by issuing the

necessary directions.  Therefore, as such, thereafter it would not

be open for the Appellants to challenge the impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court which seems to be an  ad

invitem  order.   At this stage, it is required to be noted that, as

such,   though   sufficient   time   was   granted,   the   original

respondents which included the Ministry of Railways, Ministry of

Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, DoPT, did not file any

counter affidavit.   Therefore, as such, it was never disputed by

any of the Respondents that the O.M. dated 20.11.2003 is not an

‘in principle’ decision of the DoPT for constitution of the RPF as

an   Organized   Group   “A”   Central   Service.     Under   the

circumstances,   as   such,   thereafter   it   will   not   be   open   for   the

Appellants   to   challenge   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   by

which the High Court has disposed of the writ petition by issuing

a Mandamus that, within a next six months, the necessary cadre

structure of RPF as also the Service Rules would be finalized with

reference to RPF being an Organized Group “A” Central Service.

The aforesaid direction is issued by the High Court considering

the fact that as far back in 2003, vide O.M. dated 20.11.2003, ‘in

principle’ decision was taken by the DoPT to constitute the RPF

as an Organized Group “A” Central Civil Service and thereafter,

even in the year 2005, draft Service Rules were prepared by the

Ministry of Railways after doing the exercise of Grade­wise Cadre

Structure and, despite the above, no final decision was taken to

constitute   the   RPF   as   an   Organized   Group   “A”   Central   Civil

Service.       Under   the   circumstances,   as   such,   the   impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court does not call for

any interference by this Court.

11. Even on merits also, the Appellants have no case.

11.1 According   to   the   Appellants,   the   OM   dated   20.11.2003

cannot be said to be ‘in principle’ approval granted by the DoPT

to constitute the RPF as an Organized Group “A” Central Service

and the proposal will have to be placed before the Cadre Review

Committee   for   its   approval.     However,   reading   O.M.   dated

20.11.2003,   the   High   Court   is   justified   in   treating   and/or

considering the same as ‘in principle’ approval by the DoPT to the

proposed   constitution   of   the   RPF   as   an   Organized   Group   “A”

Central Service.   However, para (2) of the said O.M. stated that

the   proposal   will   have   to   be   placed   before   the   Cadre   Review

Committee   for   its   approval,   just   like   a   normal   cadre   review

proposal   for   the   department   for   further   processing.     Merely

because   the   ‘in   principle’   decision   was   to  be   placed   before  the

Cadre Review Committee, it cannot be said that the ‘in principle’

decision contained in the O.M. dated 20.11.2003 was subject to

the further approval and/or no ‘in principle’ decision was taken.

The said ‘in principle’ decision was to be placed before the Cadre

Review Committee for its approval just like a normal cadre review

proposal for further processing.   It is required to be noted that

while issuing the O.M. dated 20.11.2003, the DoPT did consider

the   Ministry   of   Railways’   O.M.   dated   8.5.2003   by   which   the

Ministry of Railways by a detailed note has opined to constitute

the RPF as an Organized Group “A” Central Service.   Therefore,

the   submission  on behalf  of the Appellants and the DoPT that

O.M.   dated   20.11.2003   of   the   DoPT   cannot   be   said   to   be   ‘in

principle’   decision  by  the  DoPT to the proposed constitution of

the RPF as an Organized Group “A” Central Service, cannot be

accepted.  At the cost of repetition, it is to be noted that the High

Court   was   made   to   believe   by   all,   including   the   Ministry   of

Railways   and   DoPT   that   the   O.M.   dated   20.11.2003   is   the   ‘in

principle’ approval by the DoPT to the proposed constitution of

the RPF as an Organized Group “A” Central Service.

12. One of the grievances of the Department seems to be, which

is the competent authority so far as the RPF is concerned on the

issue,   namely,   whether   the   Ministry   of   Railways   and/or   the

Ministry of Home Affairs and/or DoPT.  It is required to be noted

that,   right   from   the   beginning,   the   Ministry   of   Railways   has

opined and proposed and/or considered the RPF as an Organised

Group   “A”   Central   Service,   which   is   evident   from   their

correspondences   right   from   2001   onwards.       Even   considering

the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, the DoPT

would   have   jurisdiction   on   the   general   questions   relating   to

recruitment,   promotion   and   seniority   pertaining   to   Central

Services,   except   the   Railway   Services.       The   DoPT   would   have

authority on the appointment of non­Indians to civil posts under

the Government of India, except the posts under the Department

of Railways.  It also further provides that the Ministry of Railways
 26

has   the   authority   on   all   matters,   including   those   relating   to

Railway revenues.       Therefore, the DoPT and/or the Ministry of

Home   Affairs   would   not   have   any   authority   to   deal   with   the

subject with respect to services of RPF.

12.1 Another   thing   which   is   required   to   be   noted   is   and   it   is

evident   from   the   correspondences   between   the   Ministry   of

Railways   and   DoPT   and   other   authorities   that,   right   from   the

beginning, as such, the Ministry of Railways opined to constitute

the RPF as an Organised Group “A” Central Service.  

13. One of the objections against treating/constituting the RPF

as  an  Organised  Group   “A” Central Services is that one of the

attributes,   i.e.   attribute   (iv),   namely,   all   the   posts   from   JTS  to

SAG level should be filled by promotion, is not satisfied as there

is a provision for deputation in Recruitment Rules of the RPF to

the posts of DIG and IG.  At this stage, it is required to be noted

that, except the post of IG (RPF), other posts are to be filled in by

promotion   or   on   deputation.   Therefore,   merely   because   some

posts can be filled in by way of deputation also, and otherwise, if

the posts are required to be filled in by promotion also, it cannot

be   said   that   Attribute   (iv)   is   not   satisfied.     However,

unfortunately, the posts are filled in by way of deputation only
 27

resulting a stagnation so far as the officers belonging to RPF are

concerned and they are waiting since number of years for their

promotion.     Neither   they   are   getting   promotion   nor   they   are

considered as OGAS and, as such, they are denied the benefits.

13.1 At   this   stage,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   even   the

Ministry   of   Railways   also   prepared   the   draft   Rules   in   the   year

2005   after   undertaking   the   exercise   of   Grade­wise   Cadre

Structure.

13.2 Considering   the   aforesaid   submissions   and   facts   and

circumstances and the material on record, when the High Court

has issued the Mandamus considering and/or treating the O.M.

dated 20.11.2003 as ‘in principle’ decision/approval of the DoPT

to constitute the RPF as an Organised Group “A” Central Services

and   thereby   directing   the   Appellants   to   take   further   steps   for

cadre   structure   of   the   RPF   and   finalize  the   Service   Rules  with

reference to the RPF being an Organised Group “A” Central Civil

Service, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any

error.  The RPF is rightly treated and considered as an Organised

Group “A” Central Service.

14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove,

the   present   Appeal   arising   out   of   SLP   (C)   No.   12393   of   2013
 28

deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.     In the

facts and circumstance of the case, there shall be no order as to

costs.

Civil   Appeals   @   SLP   (Civil)   Nos.   35548­54   of   2015   &

15. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   by   the   impugned

judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   dated

3.9.2015   in   Writ   Petition   (C)   No.   153   of   2013  and   other   allied

Writ   Petitions   and   the   judgment   and   order   dated   15.12.2015

passed   in   Writ   Petition©   No.   3529/2015,   by   which   the   High

Court has allowed the same preferred by the private Respondents

herein and has quashed and set aside the O.M. dated 28.10.2013

and   all   other   letters,   whereby   the   original   Writ   Petitioners’

request   for   grant   of   Non­Functional   Financial   Upgradation

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘NFFU’) was rejected and by which

the   High   Court   has   also   directed   the   Respondents   therein   to

issue   requisite   notification   granting   the   benefits   of   NFFU,   as

recommended by the 6th  Central Pay Commission to the original

Writ Petitioners, the original Respondents – Union of India and

Others have preferred the present Appeals. 
 29

16. The facts leading to the present Appeals in nutshell are as

under:

That the original Writ Petitioners were serving in the CRPF.  All of

them   were   denied   the   NFFU   as   applicable   to   other   Group   “A”

Officers of the Central Government.   Therefore, they approached

the   High   Court   challenging   the   decision   of   the   original

Respondents – Appellants herein, whereby their request for the

grant  of NFFU as  applicable to other Group “A” Officers of the

Central Government, was rejected.    

16.1 It appears that during the pendency of proceedings before

the High Court, vide an Order dated 26.9.2013, the High Court

directed   the   Appellants   herein   ­   original   Respondents   to   re­

examine the issue regarding grant of NFFU to Group “A” Officers

of the CRPF, BSF and Indo­Tibetan Border Police.   However, vide

an   O.M.   dated   28.10.2013   issued   by   the   Ministry   of   Home

Affairs,   the   issue   was   decided   against   the   original   Writ

Petitioners.  Therefore, the original Writ Petitioners amended the

writ   petitions   and   challenged   the   subsequent   O.M.   dated

28.10.2013.

16.2 Before   the   High   Court,   the   original   Writ   Petitioners,  inter

alia, prayed for the following reliefs:
 30

(1) A writ of mandamus to grant them, i.e. Executive Group­

A Officers of CAPFs the benefit of NFFU with effect from

1.6.2006, as given to other Officers of Group­A Service

under   PB­3   and   PB­4,   as   issued   vide   O.M.   dated

24.4.2009.

(2) That   they   be   formally  declared  as  an  Organized  Group

“A”   Service   with   effect   from   1.1.2006   with   all

consequential benefits.

17. It   was   the   case   on   behalf   of   the   original   Writ   Petitioners

before   the   High   Court   that   all   the   original   Writ   Petitioners,   as

such, belong to Central Services Group “A”.   It was the case on

behalf of the original Writ Petitioners before the High Court that,

all throughout,  right from  1986, CRPF, BSF  etc. were declared

and considered as Organized Group “A” Services.  It was also the

case   on   behalf   of   the   original   Writ   Petitioners   that   in   the

monograph/monographs   on   “Cadre   Management   of   Group   “A”

Central Services”, the BSF and CRPF are included in the list of

Central   Services   (Group   “A”).     [1986   Monograph,   1993

Monograph].

17.1 It was also the case on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners

that, as such, the word “organized” has no legal status apropos
 31

identification of Central Group “A” Services and, at best, the word

has   been   introduced   by   someone   over   a   period   of   time   for

administrative convenience which has resulted in confusion.   It

was   submitted   that   the  list   in   the   Monograph   includes   58

services which have been categorized as Non­Technical Services,

Technical Services, Health Services and other services, i.e., ITBP,

CISF, BSF and CRPF at serial nos. 50, 51, 52 and 53 thereof.   

17.2 It was also the case on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners

that   they   meet   all   the   attributes   of   an   organized   service,

including Attribute (iv).  It was submitted that insofar as attribute

(iv) is concerned, a deputationist can only come against ex­cadre

posts,   by   virtue   of   their   own   Cadre   Rules,   therefore,   all   the

vacancies   from   JTS   to   SAG   levels   are   only   filled   by   promotion

from the cadre officers.   It was further the case on behalf of the

original Writ Petitioners that, as such, in order to overcome the

stagnation   problems,   the   6th  Pay   Commission   recommended

NFFU to all Group “A” Officers in various Organized Group “A”

Services.       It was submitted that the purpose of granting NFFU

was   to   give   relief   to   Group   “A”   Officers   facing   the   problem   of

stagnation as a fall­back option when regular promotions do not

come due to various factors.     It was submitted that, therefore,
 32

the benefit of NFFU is required to be given to organization/cadres

facing  the  problem  of  acute stagnation.   It was submitted that

CPMFs are facing had huge problem of stagnation and thus non­

grant of NFFU is most arbitrary.  

18. All these aforesaid writ petitions were opposed by the Union

of India.  It was submitted that O.M. dated 28.10.2013 has been

issued   after   careful   consideration   of   the   submissions   and   the

case   on   behalf   of   the   original   Writ   Petitioners   and   therefore   a

conscious   decision   was   taken  that  the  original  Writ  Petitioners

who belong to CRPF cannot be termed as Organized Group “A”

Services.    

18.1 It  was   submitted   on  behalf of the Union of  India that six

attributes   are   to   be   fulfilled   before   the   CRPF   and   BSF   are

considered as Organized Group “A” Services.   It was submitted

that, as such, though the original Writ Petitioners – personnel of

CRPF are meeting all first three attributes, however, they do not

meet with the 4th and 6th attributes.    It was submitted that even

if the six attributes are met, it has to meet certain other criteria,

for which reliance placed was the O.M. dated 19/20.11.2009.

18.2 That,   thereafter,   the   High   Court   having   considered   the

submissions made on behalf of both the parties and considering
 33

the   material   on   record,   more   particularly,   the   monographs

published by the DoPT from time to time, came to the conclusion

that the CPMFs have been shown as a part of the Central Group

“A” Services and that they meet the condition of being organized.

The High Court opined that the Government had itself admitted

way back that BSF and CRPF are organized services and have, in

fact,   used   them   as   examples   of   Organized   Services.       On

considering 1986, 1993 and 2010 Monographs, the High Court

observed   that   CMPFs   has   been   shown   as   part   of   Group   “A”

Central Civil Services.  Having observed and coming to the above

findings,  the   High Court  by  the impugned judgment and order

has quashed and set aside the O.M. dated 28.10.2013 and other

allied   letters,   whereby   the   original   Writ   Petitioners   request   for

grant   of   NFFU   was   rejected   and   consequently   directed   the

Appellants – original Respondents to issue requisite notification

granting the benefit of NFFU to the original Writ Petitioners as

recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission.   

18.3 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   by   the   impugned

judgments   and   orders,   the   Union   of   India   and   others   have

preferred the present Appeals.
 34

19. Shri Lekhi, learned ASG has vehemently submitted that, by

passing the impugned judgments and orders, the High Court has

materially   erred   in   holding   that   the   CMPFs   were   consciously

constituted   as   OGAS   and   thereby   has   materially   erred   in

directing the issuance of notification to grant benefit of NFFU to

CRPF.   

19.1 It is submitted by the learned ASG that, before any services

can   be   included   in   OGAS,   six   attributes   are   required   to   be

fulfilled, as has been noted in the Monograph of 1993, as well as

in   the   O.M.   dated   19/20.11.2009.     He   submitted   that,   in   the

present case, the CRPF does not fulfil the 4 th  attribute, namely,

all the vacancies above JTS and up to SAG levels are filled up by

promotion from  the   next  lower  grade.     It is further  submitted

that, even in the O.M. dated 19/20.11.2009, in paragraph 2, it

has   been   specifically   provided   that   even   if   the   services/cadres

fulfil the above criteria – six attributes, automatically they cannot

be conferred the status of OGAS.   It is submitted that it further

provides   that   an   Organized   Group   “A”   Service   is   one   which   is

constituted   consciously,   as   such,   by   the   Cadre   Controlling

Authorities and such a service shall be constituted only through
 35

the   established   procedures.     It   is   submitted   that,   therefore,   6

attributes are “basic attributes” which need to be fulfilled.

19.2 It is further submitted by Shri Lekhi, learned ASG that even

as   per   the   Recruitment   Rules,   namely   the   IPS   (Cadre)   Rules,

1954,  the   vacancies  above JTS up to SAG level are not wholly

filled   up   by   promotion   from   the   next   lower   grade,   but   by

deputation   of   IPS   Officers.       It   is   submitted   that   there   is   no

challenge to the relevant Rules.   It is submitted that, therefore,

attribute no. 4 has not all been satisfied.

19.3 It is  further submitted by the learned ASG that, as such,

NFFU   was   granted   only   to   OGAS   pursuant   to   the

recommendation   of   6th  CPC.       It   is   submitted   that   the

Commission specifically recommended against the constitution of

CAPFs as OGAS as they do not specifically fulfil the requirement

that   all   posts   from   JTS   to   SAG   level   should   be   filled   by

promotion.   It is submitted that a conscious decision has been

taken not to grant NFFU to the CRPF as the CRPF/CAPF cannot

be treated as OGAS.

19.4 It   is   further   submitted   by   the   learned   ASG   that,   even

otherwise,   the   High   Court   has   erred   in   interfering   with   the

conscious decision contained in the O.M. dated 28.10.2013, that
 36

too,   in   exercise   of   the   powers   under   Article   226   of   the

Constitution   of   India.       It   is   submitted   that,   after   careful

consideration and considering the pros and cons of the matter, a

conscious decision was taken contained in O.M. 23.10.2013.  He

submitted that, therefore, the impugned orders of the High Court

are completely unwarranted in law as it is a settled principle that

the proceedings in judicial review deal not with merits of decision

making, but with the method by which the decision is taken.  It

is submitted that there was no warrant for the High Court while

exercising   jurisdiction   in   Judicial   Review   to   substitute   its   view

with the discretion exercised by an expert authority which was

hearing the parties concerned.

20. Making   the   above   submissions,   it   is   prayed   to   allow   the

present Appeals and quash and set aside impugned judgments

and orders passed by the High Court.

21. Present   Appeals   are   vehemently   opposed   by   the   learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners.

21.1.It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the Respondents – original Writ Petitioners that the

impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court do not

call   for   any   interference   by   this   Court,   as   the   High   Court   has
 37

passed   the   impugned   judgments   and   orders   considering   the

relevant material on record and considering the fact that, right

from 1986, the CRPF etc. are treated and considered as Group

“A” Organized Services.  

21.2 It is submitted on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners that,

as such, right from the beginning of Civil Service System in India,

the services fulfilling the essential requirements were recognized

and treated as Organized Services. It is submitted that, as such,

there are no statutory provisions for formally declaring Group “A

Service to be an Organized Service.   He submitted that, even as

per the record of DoPT, it is admittedly prepared after observing

due formalities, the Central Para­Military Forces formally stand

to be the Organized Services since 1986.  It is submitted that the

isolated   posts   are   those   posts   which   do   not   have   proper

gradation,   hierarchy,   recruitment   plan,   recruitment   rules   etc.

and, on the contrary, the Organized Services are those services

which   have   proper   recruitment   plan,   quota   fixed   direct   entry,

quota   fixed   for   promotion   and   deputation   etc.,   which   fact   is

evident   from   the   Cadre   Management   Monograph   issued   by   the

DoPT in 1986.  It is vehemently submitted that, in the list given

in the Monograph, the names of BSF and CRPF can be seen.  It is
 38

submitted that it was only in the O.M. dated 20.11.2009, a doubt

has been created solely on the ground that one of the attributes

out of six attributes has not been fulfilled.   It is submitted that

O.M. dated 20.11.2009 specifying the six attributes cannot apply

to   these   Forces   as   they   have   been   treated   and   declared   as

Organized   Services   by   the   DoPT   time   and   again   through   their

own   monographs   and   various   other   correspondence.     It   is

submitted that, as such, the BSF, CRPF and ITBP were brought

into the category of regularly constituted Organized Services on

fulfilling the essential requirements of an Organized Service and

the same is also referred to in the Note of DoE dated 21.10.1986.

21.3 It is further submitted that, in fact, the DoPT, while issuing

the O.M. dated 20.11.2009 had by laying down the six attributes,

clearly   stated   that   the   existing  OGAS  who  have  evolved  over  a

period   of   time   may   have   minor   deviations   owing   to   their

functional   requirements   and,   therefore,   clarified   that   such

services   already   declared   need   not   be   reviewed.       It   is   further

submitted that, as such, the attributes mentioned in O.M. dated

20.11.2009 are only basic requirements and not pre­conditions

for service to be called an Organized Service.
 39

21.4 Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   original   Writ

Petitioners   has   brought   the   attention   of   this   Court   to   the

Monographs of 1986 and 1993 from the Cadre Management of

Group “A” Central Services and has vehemently submitted that

the cadre reviews were done only after in­depth research work by

study   teams   and   are   based   on   recommendations   of

Administrative Reforms Commission. It is submitted that, in the

aforesaid   monographs,   CRPF,   BSF   etc.   are   held   to   be   and

considered as an Organized Group “A” Services.  It is submitted

that,   therefore,   thereafter   it   is   not   open   for   the   DoPT   and/or

others not to treat the CRPF as a Central Service Group “A” and

thereby to deny the NFFU.

21.5 It   is   further   submitted   on   behalf   of   the   original   Writ

Petitioners   that,   even   otherwise,   there   is   a   clear   hierarchy   of

posts   in   the   three   Forces   which   have   sufficient   cadre   strength

with   promotional   avenues   and,   therefore,   they   meet   all   the

necessary   requisites   of   an   Organized   Service,   including   the   4 th

attribute by filling all vacancies in Senior Administrative Grade

(SAG) post on which they have right to hold.   

21.6 It   is   further   submitted   on   behalf   of   the   original   Writ

Petitioners that even Non­functional Selection Grade was granted
 40

to all CAPFs and, as per the DoPT own admission, Non­functional

Selection Grade is granted only to Organized Group “A” Services. 

21.7 It   is   further   submitted   on   behalf   of   the   original   Writ

Petitioners   that   even   after   issuance   of   the   O.M.   dated

20.11.2009,   the   Monograph   published   in   the   year   2010,   while

referring to the consolidated guidelines dated 14.12.2010, makes

specific reference to the list of existing Central Group “A” Services

annexed to the O.M.   It is submitted that in the said list, ITBP,

BSF and CRPF appear at Sl. Nos. 50, 52 and 53 respectively.  

21.8 It   is   further   submitted   on   behalf   of   the   original   Writ

Petitioners   that,   as   such,   the   plea   of   the   Appellants   that   the

Respondents   do   not   fulfil   attribute   (iv)   overlooks   the   fact   that

attribute   (iv)   refers   to   filling   of   vacancies   and   not   posts.     It   is

submitted   that,   in   fact,   there   are   large   stagnations   in   CPMF

cadres   at   the   level   of   posts   wherever   deputation   quota   for   IPS

Officers has been fixed.           It is submitted that, on one hand,

they fix the quota for IPS Officers at SAG Level and then claim

that   vacancies   are   not   being   filled   by   cadre   officers.     It   is

submitted   that,   in   all   the   three   Forces,   number   of   Officers   in

Group   “A”   Services   are   available   and,   in   fact,   eligible   for

promotion at various levels, but they are in fact stagnating for a
 41

prolonged   period   even   after   meeting   the   requisites   of   the

Promotion   Rules.     It   is   submitted   that,   in   fact,   noting   of   the

Government in one of their files, bearing No.  P­I­1/2012    Pers­

DA­Pa notices that fact that non­fulfilling the attribute (iv) cannot

be attributed to the CAPFs and it is not as if the Force is short of

officers to fill up the vacancies upto the IG rank.  It is submitted

that, in fact, the note also records that the cadre officer should

not   be   in   dis­advantageous   position   in   terms   of   delay   in

promotional avenues.    

21.9 It   is   further   submitted   on   behalf   of   the   original   Writ

Petitioners   that,   as   such,   pursuant   to   the   recommendations   of

the   4th  Pay   Commission,  DoPT has introduced financial benefit

called Non­functional Selection Grade way back in 1990.     It is

submitted that perusal of the list of services upon whom the said

benefit was applicable would show that the names of CRPF, BSF

and ITBP are mentioned therein.  It is submitted that CAPFs were

granted the benefit which is only granted to the Organized Group

“A”   Services   and,   therefore,   it   clearly   proves   that   CPMFs   were

treated as Organized Group “A” Services.

21.10 It  is   further   submitted on behalf  of the  original  Writ

Petitioners   that   the   6th  Central   Pay   Commission   is   only

recommendatory and it does not grant an organization the status

of an organized or non­organized upon various services.       It is

submitted that it is the DoPT, which is a nodal agency to declare

the services under a particular group.     It is submitted that, as

such,   the   DoPT   in   its   various   monographs   has   referred   to   the

procedures   for   conducting   cadre   review   and   to   show   that   the

Cadre Review Exercise is done of a regularly constituted Service

(Organized   Services).     It   is   further   submitted   that,   as   per   the

DOPT Monographs, the Cadre Review Exercise is done only for

the   Organized   Group   “A”   Services   and   a   list   of   services   whose

cadre   was   reviewed   by   DoPT   was   also   attached   with   the   said

Monographs, which bears the name of CAPFs.     It is submitted

that,   therefore,   the   submission   on   behalf   of   Appellants   that

CAPFs was not recommended by the 6 th Central Pay Commission

and therefore not entitled to NFFU, is contrary to the procedures

and the delegation of power.  

21.11 It  is   further   submitted on behalf  of the  original  Writ

Petitioners   that,   as   such,   there   are   promotion   avenues   and

hierarchy of posts and merely because some posts are filled up

on   deputation   cannot   be   a   ground   to   deny   the   status   of

Organized  Group   “A”  Services to CRPF  etc, and on the ground

that  Attribute   (iv)  has   not been satisfied and/or fulfilled.   It is

submitted   that   there   are   number   of   many   other

organizations/services, including the Indian Audit and Accounts

Services, Central Health Services, Indian Legal Services etc. who

have a number of deputationists and still they are granted the

benefits   treating   them   as   Organized   Group   “A”   Services.     It   is

submitted   that,   therefore,   even   otherwise,   the   action   of   the

Appellants in denying the benefit of NFFU to the CAPFs is illegal,

arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.   

22. Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the

present Appeals. 

23. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective

parties at length.

23.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the issue in the

present Appeals is non­grant of NFFU to the Officers/employees

like the original Writ Petitioners serving in the CRPF.   CRPF in

the present case is denied the NFFU solely on the ground that the

CRPF is not an Organized Group “A” Service and, therefore, they

are denied the benefits of NFFU as recommended by the 6 th  Pay

Commission as granted to other services.  
 44

23.2 That,   while   considering   the   aforesaid   issue,   the   object   of

grant of NFFU is required to be considered.  In order to overcome

the stagnation problems, the 6th  Pay Commission recommended

NFFU to all Group “A” Officers in various Organized Group “A”

Services.       The purpose of granting NFFU was to give relief to

Group “A” Officers facing the problem of stagnation as fall­back

option when regular promotions do not come into various factors.

It has   come  on  record   that CPMFs are facing huge problem  of

stagnation,  more  particularly, on one hand, they are not being

granted the promotion as most of the promotional posts are filled

in by deputation and, on the other hand, they are denied NFFU.

23.3 As observed hereinabove, CMPFs are not granted the benefit

of NFFU on the ground that they are not categorized as Organized

Group   “A”   Services.     As   noted   hereinabove,   it   is   the   case   on

behalf   of   the   Appellants   that,   out   of   six   attributes   which   are

required   to   be   considered   for   treating   and/or   considering   an

organization as an Organized Group “A” Services, the CRPF do

not satisfy Attribute nos. (iv) and (vi) and also on the ground that

the   6th  Pay   Commission   did   not   recommend   grant   of   NFFU   to

CAPFs.   
 45

23.4 Considering the material on record, more particularly, the

monographs   published   by   the   DoPT   right   from   1986   till   date,

CAPFs have been shown to be a part of the Central Group “A”

Services.  CAPFs have been shown as a part of the Central Group

“A” Services after conducting the exercise of Cadre Review etc. by

the DoPT.   Therefore, all throughout from 1986 till date, in the

Monographs published by the DoPT, CAPFs have been shown to

be a part of Central Group “A” Services.   Therefore, thereafter it

would not be open for the DoPT not to consider and/or treat the

CAPFs as an Organized Group “A” Services.

23.5 So far as the submission made on behalf of the Appellants

that CAPFs are not an Organized Group “A” Services as they do

not satisfy two attributes out of six attributes is concerned, it is

required to be noted that the O.M. dated 19.11.2009 specifically

notes   that   there   may   be   certain   “minor   deviations”   from   the

attributes listed therein and also to the extent wherein it states

that even if the listed criteria are fulfilled, the same would not

automatically   confer   the   status   of   an   Organized   Group   “A”

Service.       Thus,   as   rightly   observed   by   the   High   Court   in   the

impugned   judgment   and   order,   fulfilling/compliance   of   the

attributes shall not be given too weightage while deciding on the

status of CAPFs. 

23.6 At   this   stage,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   while

considering   the   case   of   ITBP,   the   Department   of   Expenditure,

Ministry of Finance, Government of India, it has been referred to

in the Additional Affidavit of the Director, DoPT that since ITBP

has no proper structure it is not possible to compare it with other

Organized Services like BSF, CRPF.  Thus, the Government itself

has itself admitted way back on 21.10.1986 that BSF and CRPF

are Organized Services and have, in fact, used them as examples

of Organized Services.  At the cost of repetition, it is to be noted

that   thereafter   the   Government   has,   through   its   own   process,

classified   the   BSF,   CRPF   and   ITBP   as   being   at   par   with   each

other   in   the   1986,   1993   and   2010   Monographs,   wherein   the

aforesaid CAPFs have been shown as a part of the same Group

“A” Central Civil Services.

23.7 From   the   impugned   judgments   and   orders   passed   by   the

High Court, it appears that by passing the impugned judgments

and   orders   and   holding   that   CAPFs   are   Organized   Group   “A”

Central Civil Services, the High Court has considered the report

of the Second Administrative Reform Committee which included
 47

in Table 4.1 a list of all Organized Group “A” Central Services in

the Government of India in which the Para­Military Forces such

as   BSF,  CISF,   SRPF   and  ITBP are shown at Sl. Nos. 22 to 25

respectively and the source at the bottom of the Table is stated to

be the DoPT itself.  

23.8 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the

material   on   record,   which   came   to   be   considered   by   the   High

Court  in  detail,  it  cannot be said that CIPFs do not constitute

Organized   Group   “A”   Central   Civil   Services/Group   “A”   Central

Civil Services.  

24. Now,   so   far   as   another   ground   on   which   the   CRPF   are

denied   the   NFFU   that   the  6th  Central  Pay   Commission   did  not

grant NFFU to CAPFs is concerned, it is required to be borne in

mind   that   the   Central   Pay   Commission,   as   such,   is   not

authorised to define “Organized Services” or to grant such status

to   any   service.       The   recommendations   would   be  made   by  the

Central   Pay   Commission   on   the   basis   of   the   information

submitted to it by the various Departments.   It appears from the

material   on   record   that   right   from   1986   onwards,   in   various

Monographs CAPFs were included in the list of Group “A” Central

Civil Services.   The Government took ‘U’ turn and a stand was
 48

taken that CAPFs are not Organized Group “A” Central Services

and,   therefore,   on   the   basis   of   such   a   stand,   the   Department

must have given the information to the Central Pay Commission

and, therefore, the 6th Pay Commission did not recommend NFFU

to CAPFs.  Therefore, merely because the 6 th Pay Commission did

not recommend to grant NFFU to CAPFs – Group “A” Officers in

PB­III   and   PB­IV,   the   Group   “A”   Officers   in   PB­III   and   PB­IV

cannot be denied the NFFU, which otherwise is granted to all the

Officers of Group “A” Central Civil Services.

24.1 It is also required to be noted that, as such, the CAPFs were

granted the benefit of recommendations of 4 th  Pay Commission,

more   particularly,   the   Modified   Assured   Career   Progression

Scheme which was given to the Central Group “A” Civil Services.

24.2 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the

objects and reasons of the grant of NFFU as recommended by the

6th  Pay   Commission,   when   the   High   Court   has   observed   and

consequently directed that the officers in PB­III and PB­IV in the

CAPFs are Organized Group “A” Service and, therefore, entitled to

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 High Court has committed any error which calls for

the   interference   by   this   Court.   We   are  in  complete  agreement

with the view taken by the High Court.

25. In   view   of   the   facts   and   circumstances,   present   Appeals

arising   out   of   SLP   (Civil)   Nos.   35548­35554   of   2015   and

13937/2016   deserve   to   be   dismissed   and   are   accordingly

dismissed.  In the facts and circumstance of the case, there shall

be no order as to costs.

SLP (C) CC No. 5735/2016, SLP (C) CC No. 5736/2016,
SLP (C) CC No. 5737/2016, SLP (C) CC No. 5738/2016,
SLP (C) CC No. 5743/2016, SLP (C) CC No. 5742/2016 &
SLP (C) ……CC No. 5740/2016

26. So   far   as   these   petitions   seeking   permission   to   file   the

special   leave   petitions   are   concerned,   in   view   of   the   reasons

stated in the Civil Appeal @ SLP© No. 12393/2013, and as we

concur   with   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the

High   Court,   and   even   otherwise   considering   the   fact   that   by

granting   RPF   as   an   Organized   Group   ‘A’   Central   Services,   the

rights of the IPS, if any, for their appointment on deputation on

some of the posts in RPF cannot be said to have been affected
 50

and   merely   because   some   posts   in   the   RPF   might   have   been

required to be filled in by way of deputation also, grant of status

of Organized Group ‘A’ Central Services to RPF shall not affect

the IPS, the applications for permission to file the special leave

petitions deserve to be declined and are accordingly declined. 

…..……………………………..J.
(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

….………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
New Delhi,
February 05, 2019.