Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Kuldeep Chand Bhardwaj vs M/O Home Affairs on 19 January, 2026
1 OA No.3258/2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.3258/2018
Order reserved on: 12.12.2025
Order pronounced on: 19.01.2026
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon'ble Sh. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
1. K.C. Bhardwaj
Age 45 years
S/o Late Hirda Ram
Presently working DFO(Tele)
Force Hq, SSB,
Ministry of Home Affairs
East Block V, New Delhi
R/o Qtr No.466, Sector-2
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-22
2. Deep Chand Tripathi
Age 48 years
S/o Late M.C. Tripathi
Presently working DFO(Tele)
Force Hq, SSB,
Ministry of Home Affairs
East Block V, New Delhi
R/o Sipahi Dhara
Tallital, Nainital (U.K.)
3. Vinod Chand Tripathi
Age 49 years
S/o Late M.C. Tripathi
Presently working DFO(Tele)
O/o DIG SHQ, SSB
Almora (UP)
R/o SipahiDhara
Tallital, Nainital (U.K.)
4. K.B. Kabui
Age 48 years
S/o Lt. Amu Kabui
Presently working DFO(Tele)
Force Hq, SSB,
Ministry of Home Affairs
East Block V, New Delhi
R/o 34 M, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi
Sunita
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65=
1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone=
f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed6
88256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi
, SERIALNUMBER=
2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14
b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt
Dutt Reason: your signing reason here
Location: your signing location here
Date: 2026.01.23 15:21:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
2 OA No.3258/2018
5. Amarpal
Age 46 years
S/o Sh. Gopichand
Presently working as DFO(Tele)
Force Hq, SSB,
Ministry of Home Affairs
East Block V, New Delhi
R/o Qtr No.432, Sector-5
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-22
6. Jayant Kumar Nath
Age 52 years
S/o Late TaranathNath
O/o DIG, SSB, Rangia (Assam)
R/o Borjhargaon,
Divkargaon
Sonitpur (Assam)-784501
7. KangabamJatin kr. Singh
Age 43 years
S/o KangabamManihar Singh
Presently working as DFO(Tele)
Office of SHQ SSS, Rangia (Assam)
R/o KeishaptaKangabamLeikai
Imphal (West), Manipur
8. Th. Premchandra Singh
Age 43 years
S/o ShNingthembi Singh
Presently working as DFO(Tele)
Office of SHQ, SSB, Rangia (ASSAM)
R/o Langthabal- Kunja PO-
Canchipur, MU Campus
Distt. Imphal, Manipur-795003
9. LakshmanHalder
Age 45 years
S/o Late SubodhHalder
Presently working DFO (Tele)
FTR HQ
SSB, Lucknow (UP)
R/o VillGopalnagar
PO & PS Raghunathgon
MSD, West Bengal
10. Prithi Singh
Age 47 years
S/o Late Bhala Ram
Presently working as DFO(Tele)
Office of MTC, SSB, Fir hill
Shimla (HP)
R/o Qtr No.03, Block 7
Summer Hill Shimla-5.
Sunita
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65=
1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone=
f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed6
88256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi
, SERIALNUMBER=
2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14
b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt
Dutt Reason: your signing reason here
Location: your signing location here
Date: 2026.01.23 15:21:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
3 OA No.3258/2018
11. ThiyamBishwajit Singh
Age 44 years
S/o Late ThiyamYaimachou
Presently working DFO (Tele)
Office of FTR HQRS, SSB
GUWAHATI (ASSAM)
ThiyamLeishangKhong
PO&PS Wangoi, DisttImphal (West)
Manipur
12. DigantaBoroowah
Age 47 years
S/o Late AnandaBoroowah
Presently working as DFO(Tele)
Office of FTR HQRS, SSB
Guwahati (Assam)
R/o Borgang, DisttSonitpur
Assam-784167
13. Lachman Singh
Age 50 years
S/o Late Shri Trilok Singh
Presently working as FO(Tele)
Office of FTR, HQR, SSB
GUWAHATI (ASSAM)
Vill, PO Sarasaria, Tehsil
Khatima, Distt -U/S Nagar (U.K)
14. Manoj Kumar Yadav
Age 41 years
S/o PrabhuNathYadav
Presently working as DFO(Tele)
Office of SHQ SSB, Pilibhit
(UP) Under Dep NCB Lucknow
R/o VillRajepur, PO Rajgaon
Distt. Jaunpur (UP)
15. KrishanaKantaNath
Age 51 years
S/o Late DharmashwarNath
Working as DFO (Tele)
O/o DIG, SHQ, SSB, Bezpara
At D/Nagar, SSAM
R/o Padhnoi, PO-Hurgrajuli, Distt-
Sonitpur, Assam
16. L. Devananda Singh
Age 48 years
S/o Late L. Menjor Singh
Working as DFO Tele
O/o DIG, SHQ, SSB, Bezpara
At D/Nagar, SSAM
Sunita
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65=
1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone=
f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed6
88256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi
, SERIALNUMBER=
2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14
b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt
Dutt Reason: your signing reason here
Location: your signing location here
Date: 2026.01.23 15:21:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
4 OA No.3258/2018
R/o NambolSabalLeikai
P.O& PS Nambol, Manipur
17. P. Shyamjoi Singh
Age 55 years
S/o Late P. Tomal Singh
Working as DFO(Tele)
O/o DIG, SHQ, SSB, Bezpara
At D/Nagar, SSAM
R/o Singjamil
Waikhom
Leikai, Imphal West
18. Shiv Ram
Age 45 years
S/o ShKaram Chand
Presently working as DFO(Tele)
In Office of Cmdt SSB TTC,
Kasumpati, Shimla (HP),
R/o Vill Bain, Teh&Distt Samba
Jammu & Kashmir
19. Govind Singh
Age 47 years
S/o Late Hera Nand
Presently working DFO (Tele)
Office of TTC, Kasumpati,
Distt, Shimla (HP)
R/o VillDhangvi, PO-Kokunala
The Kotkhai, Distt Shimla
20. Nettar Singh
Age 50 years
S/o Lt Dhania Ram
Presently Working DFO (Tele)
Office of TTC, Kasumpati,
Distt, Shimla (HP)
Vill TAPA, PO Banet,
Distt Chamba-171202
21. Arun Lama
Age 43 years
S/o Bhola Lama
Presently working as DFO(Tele)
Office of FTR HQ, SSB, Tezpur (Assam)
R/o Champasari, Siliguri
Distt, Darjeeling (W.B.)
22. T. Premjit Singh
Age 45 years
S/o Sh T. Kesho Singh
Presently working as DFO(Tele)
Office of FTR HQ, SSB, Tezpur (Assam)
Sunita
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65=
1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone=
f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed6
88256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi
, SERIALNUMBER=
2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14
b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt
Dutt Reason: your signing reason here
Location: your signing location here
Date: 2026.01.23 15:21:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
5 OA No.3258/2018
R/o Takel, MakhaLeikai
Imphal (East) Manipur
23. Naresh Kumar
Age 43 years
S/o Sh. Jagdish Chand
Presently working as DFO(tele)
O/o DIG CTC SSB, Sapri, HP
R/o Qtr No.5(type III)
New SSB, Colony, Jwalamukhi, HP
24. S.Iboyama Singh
Age 51 years
S/o Late S. Ibotoubi Singh
Working as DFO(Tele)
O/o DIG SHQ, SSB
Bongaigaon, Assam
R/o Singjamie
Wangma
BhegyabatiLeikai
Imphal East, Manipur
25. Harash Mohan Bisht
Age 48 years
S/o Sh J.S. Bisht
Working as DFO (Tele)
O/o Comdt 55th BN SSB
Pithorgagarh (U.K)
R/o Deharadoon (U.K.)
26. Manoj Kumar Bala
Age 46 years
S/o Late Lakshmi KantaBala
Presently working as DFO(Tele)
Office of SHQ, SSB
Rani Danga, Darjeeling (W.B)
Vill& PO Rupdaha
PO NabaRupadohe
Distt Nadia, West Bengal
27. Shyamal Sarkar
Age 44 years
S/o Late Gurupada Sarkar
Presently working DFO(Tele)
Office of SHQ SSB
Ranidanga, Darjeeling
R/o VillHasanbad
(Basantita) PO-Simulia
Distt 24 PGS(NB)
28. RaghupatiHembram
Age 42 years
S/o Ram Chandra Hembram
Presently working as DFO(Tele)
Sunita
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65=
1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone=
f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed6
88256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi
, SERIALNUMBER=
2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14
b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt
Dutt Reason: your signing reason here
Location: your signing location here
Date: 2026.01.23 15:21:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
6 OA No.3258/2018
Office of SHQ SSS
Ranidanga, Darjeeling
R/o VillAganta, PS Amdang
24 PGS(N), West Bengal
29. BhubanThapa
Age 43 years
S/o BhimBahadurThapa
Working as DFO(Tele)
O/o FTR, HQR, SSS,
Siliguri, W.B.
VillDeepatala PO,
Kasutala, DisttSonitpur
Assam
30. Dharampal
Age 52 years
S/o Late Santram
Presently working as DFO(Tele)
Office of SHQ, SSB, Pilibhit (UP).
R/o B-234, DDA colony, New Ranjeetnagar
New Delhi-110008
31. Suraj Pal Singh
Age 46 years
S/o Late Hukum Singh
Presently working as. DFO(Tele)
Office of CTC SSS, Srinagar
(Uttarakhand)
R/o VillKabatta, Distt Meerut (UP)
32. Gora Chand Paul
Age 44 years
S/o Sh. Tarapadu Paul
Working as DFO(Tele)
O/o FTR, HQR, SSB Siliguiri
West Bengal
R/o Vill.& PO Swarup Nagar
Distt 24 Parganas (N)-743286
33. Mahesh Chandra Joshi
Age 45 years
S/o Sh Mathura Datt Joshi
Presently working as DFO(Tele)
Office of Comdt , IT & TTC
Faridabad (Haryana)
R/o Qtr No. 1237, Type 3
NH-4, Faridabad (Haryana)
34. Asim Kumar Mallick
Age 47
S/o HajarilalMallick
Presently working as DFO(Tele)
Office of DIG , SHQ, SSB
Sunita
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65=
1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone=
f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed6
88256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi
, SERIALNUMBER=
2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14
b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt
Dutt Reason: your signing reason here
Location: your signing location here
Date: 2026.01.23 15:21:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
7 OA No.3258/2018
JALPAIGURI (W.B)-735121
R/o NATUNPUKAR, PO-BARASAT, DISTT.
NORTHH 24 PAGS W.B.-700124
35. Rajesh Kumar Thakur
Age- 45
S/o Late- Dasrath Thakur
Presently working as DFO(Tele)
Office of IG , FTR, HQ SSB
Patna (Bihar)
R/o LachitChowk, PO-Tezpur, DISTT.
Sonitpur, Assam.
36. Atul Chand Boruah
Age-59
S/o Late- Dondi Prasad Boruah
Presently working as DFO (Tele)
Office of DIG, SHQ SSB
Rangia Assam
R/o Torjan, Jorhat, Assam.
37. ShyamalSilSarma
Age-44
S/o Ranjit KR. SilSarma
Presently working as DFO (Tele)
Office of DIG, SHQ SSB
Bongaigaon, Assam
R/o Vill-Pachagar, PO+ PS Mathabanga,
Distt- Cooch Behar, W.B.
38. Parisht Kr. Chanda (Age-56)
S/o Late Sh. N.L Chanda
Presently working as DFO (Tele)
Office of DIG SHQ SSB,
Bongaigaon, Assam
R/o Vill- Bedrang, PO -Mahisharn,
Distt -Karimganj, (Assam).
....Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Padma Kumar S.)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs
North Block, New Delhi-1
2. Director General
SashastraSeemaBal
Force HQ, R.K. Puram
New Delhi.
Sunita
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65=
1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone=
f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed6
88256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi
, SERIALNUMBER=
2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14
b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt
Dutt Reason: your signing reason here
Location: your signing location here
Date: 2026.01.23 15:21:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
8 OA No.3258/2018
3. Director
Intelligence Bureau
Ministry of Home Affairs
Government of India
North Block, New Delhi-1.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Rajeev Kumar)
ORDER
By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A) The applicants, 38 in number, have filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2017 (Annexure A-1).
(b) Direct the respondents to grant the applicants the same benefits of Pay Matrix 7 as that of the DFOs of RAW with all consequential benefits of arrears and interest thereon w.e.f. 01.01.2016 or from the date they became DFO, whichever is later.
(c) Any other relief as may be deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Factual Matrix 2.1 The present applicants are holding the civil posts of Deputy Field Officers (Tele) (DFO/Tele) in the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) on or after 01.01.2016. Originally, the SSB along with Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), Aviation Research Centre (ARC) and Special Frontier Force (SFF) were under the administrative control of Cabinet Secretariat till 2001. In the year 2001, the administrative control of SSB Sunita Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed6 88256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi , SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14 b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:21:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 9 OA No.3258/2018 was shifted from Cabinet Secretariat to Ministry of Home Affairs. Prior to the change in the administrative control of SSB from Cabinet Secretariat to Ministry of Home Affairs in all the aforementioned organizations, the posts like Field Assistants (FA), Senior Field Assistants (SFA), Assistant Field Officers (AFO), Deputy Field Officers (DFO) and Field Officers (FO) were common. Their pay scales for similarly designated employees were the same irrespective of the one Sub-Unit within the Cabinet Secretariat particularly, the aforementioned Sub-Organizations.
2.2 On the basis of 6th CPC recommendations which were effective from 01.01.2006, the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 notified the Pay Band/Grade Pay prescribed for the posts of FA, SFA, AFO, DFO, FO and SOs of the Cabinet Secretariat in the following manner:
S.No. Name of Posts Grade Pay
(a) Field Assistants (FA) 1900
(b) Senior Field Assistants (SFA) 2000
(c) Assistant Field Officers (AFO) 2400
(d) Deputy Field Officers (DFO) 4200
(e) Field Officers (FO) 4600
(f) Section Officers (SOs) 4600
However, later Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 were amended and the said officers were given revised pay scales in the following manner:
Sunita Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed6 88256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi , SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14 b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:21:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 10 OA No.3258/2018 S.No. Name of Posts Grade Pay
(a) Field Assistants (FA) 2000
(b) Senior Field Assistants (SFA) 2400
(c) Assistant Field Officers (AFO) 2800
(d) Deputy Field Officers (DFO) 4200
(e) Field Officers (FO) 4800
(f) Section Officers (SOs) 4800 (5400 after 4 years) 2.3 However, the similarly designated officials, who were working in SSB, were not given the enhanced pay scales as given to the sub units who remained with the Cabinet Secretariat after 2001. Various categories of officials belonging to FAs, SFAs, AFOs, FOs, SOs and Circle Organizers (COs) of SSB approached this Tribunal in the following OAs as their pay scales were at par with the similarly designated officers in the various sub-units still working under the Cabinet Secretariat:
S.No. Name of Post Grade Pay Case No.
1. Section Officer Enhanced Not known
from
Rs.4600 to Rs.5400
2. Field Officer OA- Enhanced from
1011/2011 Rs.4600 to Rs.4800
3. Circle Organizers OA- Enhanced from
1635/2013 Rs.4600 to Rs.4800
4. Field OA- Grade Pays were
Assistants/Senior 1046/2012 brought at par with
Field Assistants/ with OA- those prevailing for
Assistant Field 2219/2012 the similarly
Officers designated officials in
Sub-Units of Cabinet
Secretariat.
2.4 The respondents vide order dated 13.04.2017 revised the pay of the DFOs of Cabinet Secretariat and granted pay level-7 w.e.f. 1.1.2016 with Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-, whereas Sunita Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed6 88256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi , SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14 b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:21:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 11 OA No.3258/2018 the Grade Pay of the DFOs working in SSB was retained at Rs.4200. The applicants made a representation to enhance their Grade Pay at par with DFOs who were the Sub-Unit of Cabinet Secretariat, i.e. RAW (Annexure A-8). The respondents vide impugned order dated 28.11.2017 rejected the representation of the applicants. Being aggrieved, the applicants have filed the present OA seeking the aforementioned relief.
3. Pursuant to the notices issued by the Tribunal, the respondents entered appearance and filed their counter reply to which the applicant has also filed his rejoinder.
4. Submissions by Learned Counsel for the Applicants 4.1 The learned counsel for the applicants states that there has always been a historical parity between DFOs and similar designated officers in RAW and SSB. This parity was there since beginning when all the sub units were under the Cabinet Secretariat. He further states that the nature of job and responsibility of the present applicants or the DFOs are the same in SSB as well as RAW. This matter has been recognized by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Atma Prakash Dixit SFA (M) vs. Union of India, OA No.2866/2012 dated 13.05.2013 wherein it is held as follows:
"13. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the Respondents have acted in violation of Articles Sunita Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed6 88256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi , SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14 b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:21:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 12 OA No.3258/2018 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in granting lesser grade pay to the SFA, AFO, FO etc. of SSB from SFA, AFO, FO etc. serving in ARC, RAW and SFF without justification. When there is no change in the nature of duties and responsibilities of the Applicants after shifting of administrative control of SSB from Cabinet Secretariat to Ministry of Home Affairs, the Respondents should have maintained the same grade pay to them also at par with the grade of the corresponding posts in all the organizations still under Cabinet Secretariat. The FOs under the SSB, as already stated, have already obtained an order for granting them the grade pay of Rs.4800/- at par with the FOs of ARC, SFF, RAW etc. with effect from 1.1.2006 vide order of this Tribunal in OA No. 1011/2011 (supra) and the Respondents have already implemented the order."
4.2 Learned counsel for the applicants further states that except DFOs all other designated officers like FAs, SFAs, AFOs, FOs and SOs/COs when they approached this Tribunal, got favourable orders, the respondents have granted the enhanced Grade Pay as has been given to the similarly designated employees in RAW and other sub units who are still working under Cabinet Secretariat. He referred to the order dated 17.5.2013 in OA No.1046/2012 along with OA No.2219/2012 wherein similar benefits were granted by the Tribunal to FAs, SFAs and AFOs and the respondents have implemented the said order. In case of the Circle Organizers in SSB, the order dated 13.08.2013 in Harpal Singh and others vs. Union of India and others, OA No.1635/2013 was implemented vide order dated 10.07.2014 (Annexure A-4) by the respondents. In case of the FAs, SFAs and AFOs in compliance of order dated 17.05.2013, the respondents vide order dated 4.3.2014 implemented the enhanced Grade Pay Sunita Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed6 88256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi , SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14 b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:21:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 13 OA No.3258/2018 (Annexure A-6). He refers to order dated 13.4.2017 issued by the Cabinet Secretariat vide which the Grade Pay of the pay matrix of the DFOs in RAW was enhanced from Level-6 to Level-7 (Annexure A-7). In view of the above, learned counsel for applicants states that DFOs from amongst hierarchy starting from FOs to COs should not be discriminated vis-à- vis similarly designated officials in SSB, ARC and RAW. This action of the respondents amount to discrimination violating the principle of equality in public employment under Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
5. Submission by Learned counsel for respondents 5.1 Learned counsel for respondents, drawing reference to counter affidavit filed by the respondents on 14.01.2019, states that the administrative control of SSB was shifted from Cabinet Secretariat to Ministry of Home Affairs in the year 2001. The higher Grade Pay in pay matrix Level-7 was allowed to the DFOs of different trades serving in RAW only and not for the applicants serving in SSB. Learned counsel for respondents states that there is no historical parity of similarly designated officials in SSB with that RAW. The scope of the functions and responsibility of DFOs in RAW is significantly different from DFOs in SSB and the nature of duties are significantly different. The pay fixation of the DFOs of SSB has been made in conformity with the Sunita Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed6 88256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi , SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14 b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:21:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 14 OA No.3258/2018 recommendations of the 7th CPC as conveyed by Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance by ID Note dated 11.04.2018. The respondents could not deviate from the advice given by ID Note furnished by Department of Expenditure. He further states that the recruitment rules for the applicants are different form the recruitment rules of DFOs in RAW. He further states that the historical parity of the similarly designated DFOs of SSB was never there for similarly designated officers in RAW. Rather it was historical parity with DFOs of ARC and SSB only.
5.2 Learned counsel for respondents further states that the grant of pay parity and enhancement grade pay is a policy decision which falls under the domain of Executive and the Courts/Tribunals are not supposed to interfere in policy matters. He refers to the Apex Court judgment in S.P. Mediratta vs. UOI in LPA No.904/2013 decided on 19.3.2024 wherein Apex Court held that:
"15. Thus, the decision to not extend the benefits of the CGH Scheme to the Appellants is a policy decision keeping in mind various factors including economic ones. Due to resource constraints including financial and logistical, the Respondents have been unable to extend benefits under the CGH Scheme to the Appellants. From an examination of the record, this does not appear to be arbitrary. Thus warrants no interference by this Court.
16. In so far as the contention that the differential treatment given by the Respondents to the Appellants falls foul of Article 14 of the Constitution is concerned, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti & Ors. 2022 13 SCC 256. In that case it was held that a reasonable classification does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If benefit is extended to a class of persons, the same cannot be termed as arbitrary given the rational nexus with the object of excluding the benefits to a group of persons forming a class of their own. It is necessary to look into social, revenue and economic considerations and permissible parameters for extending such benefits. Since the role of the Court is restrictive, such decisions are best left to the authorities concerned. The Courts should be wary of entering into such an arena. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below:
"Classification Test & Policy Decisions of the State:
Sunita Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed6 88256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi , SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14 b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:21:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 15 OA No.3258/2018
14. A mere differential treatment on its own cannot be termed as an "anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution". When there is a reasonable basis for a classification adopted by taking note of the exigencies and diverse situations, the Court is not expected to insist on absolute equality by taking a rigid and pedantic view as against a pragmatic one.
15. Such a discrimination would not be termed as arbitrary as the object of the classification itself is meant for providing benefits to an identified group of persons who form a class of their own. When the differentiation is clearly distinguishable with adequate demarcation duly identified, the object of Article 14 gets satisfied. Social, revenue and economic considerations are certainly permissible parameters in classifying a particular group. Thus, a valid classification is nothing but a valid discrimination. That being the position, there can never be an injury to the concept of equality enshrined under the Constitution, not being an inflexible doctrine.
......
17. The question as to whether a classification is reasonable or not is to be answered on the touchstone of a reasonable, common man's approach, keeping in mind the avowed object behind it. If the right to equality is to be termed as a genus, a right to nondiscrimination becomes a specie. When two identified groups are not equal, certainly they cannot be treated as a homogeneous group. A reasonable classification thus certainly would not injure the equality enshrined under Article 14 when there exists an intelligible differentia between two groups having a rational relation to the object. Therefore, an interference would only be called for on the court being convinced that the classification causes inequality among similarly placed persons. The role of the court being restrictive, generally, the task is best left to the concerned authorities. When a classification is made on the recommendation made by a body of experts constituted for the purpose, courts will have to be more wary of entering into the said arena as its interference would amount to substituting its views, a process which is best avoided."
[Emphasis is Ours]."
17. It is settled law that Courts ought not to encroach upon the domain of the legislature or the executive and issue directions which impose financial burden on the State. The learned Single Judge has in this regard while declining to give directions to the Respondents, held as below:
"3. In a Utopian society everyone must get equal benefits, however, in this real world each autonomous organization has to run as per the finances which are available and sanctioned to it. Courts have repeatedly held that decisions of the administrative authorities with respect to finances should not ordinarily be interfered with by the Courts because organizations know best how to use their available finances. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Workman, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408 [LQ/SC/2006/1115] has held that Courts should not give directions for fixing of a particular pay scale or for creation of sanctioned posts or for regularization of employees and so on, because the same will put financial burden on the employers which the Courts cannot impose. The relevant paragraphs of this judgment are as under:-
"16. We are afraid that the Labour Court and the High Court have passed their orders on the basis of emotions and sympathies, but cases in court have to be decided on legal principles and not on the basis of emotions and sympathies.
18. In State of M.P. v. Yogesh Chandra Dubey this Court held that a post must be created and/or sanctioned before filling it up. If an employee is not appointed against a sanctioned post he is not entitled to any scale of pay. In our opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case also.
37. Creation and abolition of posts and regularisation are purely executive functions vide P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General. Hence, the court cannot create a post where none exists. Also, we cannot issue any direction to absorb the respondents or continue them in service, or pay them salaries of regular employees, as these are purely executive functions. This Court cannot arrogate to itself the powers of the executive or legislature. There is broad Sunita Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed6 88256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi , SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14 b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:21:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 16 OA No.3258/2018 separation of powers under the Constitution, and the judiciary, to, must know its limits.
40. The Courts must, therefore, exercise judicial restraint, and not encroach into the executive or legislative domain. Orders for creation of posts, appointment on these posts, regularisation. fixing pay scales, continuation in service, promotions, etc. are all executive or legislative functions, and it is highly improver for Judges to step into this sphere, except in a rare and exceptional cases. The relevant case-law. and philosophy of judicial restraint has been-Md down by the Madras High Court in great detail in Rama Muthuramalingam v. Dy. Supdt. Of Police and we fully agree with the views expressed therein." (underlining added)."
[Emphasis is Ours]."
5.3 Drawing attention of the Tribunal to the aforementioned judgment of the Apex Court, learned counsel for respondents states that the Tribunal should restrain itself from passing any order regarding enhancement of Grade Pay to the present applicants.
6. Analysis 6.1 The present applicants are seeking parity in the Grade Pay with DFOs of RAW under the Cabinet Secretariat. Learned counsel for applicants has referred to the parity between the similarly designated officials in SSB with those in RAW on the basis of the following:
(i) There was historical parity between all categories of posts in SSB starting with FAs till the SOs and COs. As it has been already mentioned in his submissions in the hierarchy of FAs, SFAs, AFOs, DFOs, FOs, SOs/COs, there has always been parity and the respondents have revised the Grade Pay of all other cadres except the DFOs to bring at par with those prevailing in for similar kind of cadres in RAW and Sunita Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed6 88256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi , SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14 b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:21:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 17 OA No.3258/2018 other sub units like ARC, SSF working under Cabinet Secretariat.
(ii) On the other hand, the respondents in their counter affidavit has emphasized that there was never historical parity between DFOs in SSB and DFOs in RAW. This has not been succinctly brought out by the respondents in any form.
(iii) Learned counsel for the applicants has referred that within the hierarchy of various cadres starting from FAs to COs except for the DFOs, the Grade Pay of all other cadres working in SSB have been brought at par with similar cadres working in RAW, ARC and SFF. Hence, logical extension of the same benefit should have gone to the one cadre, i.e. DFOs, which has been left out by the respondents for giving higher grade pay at par with level 7 of Grade Pay, as had been given to DFO of Cabinet Secretariat.
6.2 Learned counsel for respondents had drawn our attention to the Apex Court judgment in Mediratta (supra) where it has been categorically stated that pay parity or enhancement of Grade Pay falls under the domain of the Executive and Court should refrain from giving any direction to the respondents to enhance any pay scale or grade pay. 6.3 Having regard to the Apex Court judgment in aforementioned case, we distinguish the case in Mediratta Sunita Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed6 88256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi , SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14 b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:21:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 18 OA No.3258/2018 (supra) from the present case at hand on the ground that the facts and circumstances in the instant case are significantly different than that obtained in the Mediratta (supra) case. Here the respondents have already brought out parity between various cadres below and above the DFOs at par with those prevailing in various units like RAW, ARC and SFF working under the Cabinet Secretariat. So it is not understood as to why such parity could not be brought out in the case of DFOs working in SSB at par with DFOs at RAW. It needs detailed examination whether the functions and duties of DFOs in SSB are equivalent to those functions and responsibilities under RAW. In addition, it is also not clear whether the respondents have brought parity of the DFOs working in ARC and SSB with those in RAW.
7. Conclusion 7.1 In view of the above, the present OA is disposed of with the following direction to the respondents:
(i) Let the respondents pass a detailed speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order stating:
a) Whether the pay scales of DFOs working in ARC and SFF had been brought at par with DFOs working under RAW.
Sunita Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed6 88256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi , SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14 b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:21:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 19 OA No.3258/2018
b) Respondents should also give reason as to why the Grade Pay of DFOs working under SSB cannot be brought at par with DFOs working in RAW under Cabinet Secretariat giving detailed reasons as to how the functions of these two cadres in SSB and RAW are significantly different from each order.
7.2 No order as to costs.
8. Pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Dr.ChhabilendraRoul)
Member (J) Member (A)
'SD'
Sunita
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed6 88256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi , SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14 b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:21:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0