Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. With reference to the other writ petitions, suffice it to state (i) W.P.(C) No.12751/2019 has been filed by 332 Group ‗A' Officers of CISF Executive Cadre; (ii) W.P.(C) No.12875/2019 has been filed by the 80 Group ‗A' Officers of BSF Executive Cadre; and (iii) W.P.(C) No.13588/2019 has been filed by four Group ‗A' Officers of SSB, General Duty Cadre.

10. Counsel for the petitioners in all the petitions, in his opening arguments contended that, (i) the representations of the petitioners for grant of NFFU to the members of CAPFs, treating CAPFs as OGAS, were rejected, resulting in refusal of NFFU to CAPFs; (ii) G.J. Singh supra and other connected petitions were filed challenging the said rejection and seeking declaration of CAPFs as OGAS and consequential grant of NFFU to CAPFs; (iii) during the pendency of these petitions an attempt was made to change the structure of CAPFs so that CAPFs do not qualify as OGAS, but on application of the petitioners therein, the said attempt was stayed and the writ petitions were amended; (iv) ultimately, this Court declared CAPFs as OGAS and entitled to NFFU; (v) the respondents preferred an SLP but there was no stay of the judgment of the High Court during the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court; (vi) during the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court, CR of CAPFs was undertaken but the Cadre Officers of CAPFs were denied participation in cadre review, though as per the procedure for Cadre Review, were required to be heard; on the contrary it was represented to the Cadre Review Committee that CAPFs were not OGAS; (vii) the Cabinet directed MHA to amend the RRs of CAPFs after CR, in line with the OM dated 24th March 2009; (viii) the CR carried out is bad, because no opportunity of being heard was granted to the petitioners and because of having been carried out without treating CAPFs as OGAS; (ix) as an OGAS, all posts in CAPFs up to rank of IG are to be filled up from Cadre Officers only and there has to be no deputation till the post of IG; (x) Supreme Court dismissed the SLP/appeal preferred by the petitioners on 5th February 2019; (xi) the Cadre Review carried out without taking into account the judgment in G.J. Singh supra, for the reason of the appeal thereagainst then pending in the Supreme Court, in view of the judgment in Harananda supra dismissing the appeal, is liable to be set aside; (xii) though IPS Officers were not a party to G.J. Singh and connected petitions earlier filed, but filed SLP claiming that their rights were affected by the judgments declaring CAPFs as OGAS - the said SLP was also dismissed; however on application by GOI, clarification was issued; (xiii) after Harananda supra also, no steps have been taken for declaring CAPFs as OGAS or to amend the RRs and Service Rules of CAPFs; (xiv) DoPT, vide orders dated 4th July 2009 and 20th November 2009 declared RPF and CAPFs as OGAS; and, (xv) DoPT again, vide order dated 12th July 2019 declared CAPFs as OGAS in respect of CR also.

(x) the RRs of CRPF provide for SAG after 24 years instead of after 17 years as should be for OGAS; (xi) the normal CR was in progress at the time of pronouncement of G.J. Singh supra; however the Cadre Review Committee was not informed of the said judgment and therefore the Cadre Review Committee was misled into forming an opinion that there was no need for amendment of RRs of CAPFs; (xii) vide DoPT OM dated 24th March, 2009 also, Service Rules/RRs were required to be amended pursuant to the recommendations of the 6 th CPC; (xiii) though the DoPT OM dated 24th March, 2009 in annexure thereto prescribes the minimum qualifying service for promotion but the RRs of CAPFs are not in consonance therewith; (xiv) CR is also concerned with RRs; (xv) DoPT OM dated 12th July, 2019 also conveys the approval for grant of OGAS status to CAPFs and consequential benefit of NFFU and NFSG; (xvi) the DoPT OM dated 26th March, 2019 also, on the subject of implementation of judgment in Harananda supra requested the MHA to send detailed modalities on all issues/directions covered in the judgment, enabling implementation thereof; (xvii) the confidential document at page 723 of the paper book, being a ―Note dated 16th August, 2019 for Cabinet‖ on the subject of ―Cadre Review in respect of Group ‗A' General Duty (Executive) Cadre and Non-GD Cadre Officers of Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP)‖ shows that the Cadre Review Committee was misled that ITBP was not an OGAS; (xviii) as per the understanding of DoPT, RRs of CAPFs have to be amended; (xix) the officers of IPS do not want to go to districts, where the CAPFs function but only want to occupy the positions of Inspector General, Additional Director General and Director General; (xx) the Monograph on CR of Group ‗A' Central Services also provides CR to be concerned with Cadre Structure and the minimum time at each cadre level; the cadre restructuring can be done only by amending the RRs and not otherwise; (xxi) though during the CR, the members of the CAPFs ought to have been granted an opportunity of hearing but were not called upon and were represented only by IPS Officers manning the higher posts in CAPFs; (xxii) even for grant of NFFU benefit fully to the members of CAPFs, amendment of RRs is required; (xxiii) even vide DoPT OM dated 8th May, 2018 on the subject of ―Review of Recruitment Rules / Service Rules‖, it was prescribed that RRs should be reviewed once in five years with a view to effecting such changes as are necessary, to bring them in conformity with the changed position and that since RRs are statutory in nature, it is imperative that RRs/Service Rules are updated in accordance with DoPT instructions from time to time; (xxiv) DoPT, vide OM dated 15th December, 2019 directed amendment of RRs/Service Rules for bringing uniformity in eligibility criteria across OGAS, for promotions and the same has also not been complied with; as per the said OM, the eligibility requirement for promotion to SAG level is eight years regular service in JAG level or 17 years regular service in Group ‗A' posts and out of which at least four years regular service should be in the JAG level post; however if deputation to the extent of 50% at SAG level, as existing continues, there are very few posts at SAG level, resulting in the promotion to SAG level being much beyond the prescribed 17 years regular service in Group ‗A' posts; (xxv) that the documents pertaining to ITBP circulated during the course of hearing, themselves, while setting out the growth history of ITBP record that in all the CAPFs, CR had got delayed and that there was a need for amendment of RRs; (xxvi) as per the Transaction of Business Rules of GOI, the proposal for amendment of the RRs has to be mooted by the concerned department and which in this case is MHA; (xxvii) the OMs and directions of DoPT are to be complied by MHA; (xxviii) originally, all the Group ‗A' posts in CAPFs were filled up by IPS Officers; however once the cadre in each of the CAPFs matured, the deputation of IPS Officers to the cadre posts in CAPFs has to go; (xxix) MHA, vide its communication dated 26th November, 2019 annexed to the rejoinder filed by the petitioners, has itself noted that most of the State Governments were not sparing their IPS Officers to serve in Central deputation and on going through the data of officers on Central deputation throughout the country, it was observed that then 428 IPS officers were working on Central deputation against the authorised strength of 1075 officers and resultantly a large number of Central Deputation Reserve Posts remain unutilised and that the Central Government was undertaking an exercise to reduce the existing Central Deputation Reserve Quota, by 40% of the Senior Duty Posts i.e. from 1075 posts to about 500 posts; (xxx) G.J. Singh supra not only granted NFFU but granted all consequential reliefs and for this reason only the UOI had preferred SLP to the Supreme Court and the judgment of the Supreme Court notices arguments of the Additional Solicitor General that NFFU could not be granted to CAPFs because in CAPFs all posts upto SAG level were not filled up by promotion, meaning that grant of NFFU would require change therein; (xxxi) therefore once CAPFs were declared as OGAS, all consequences have to be followed; (xxxii) IPS Officers do not have any right to deputation in CAPFs; and, (xxxiii) mandamus is not being claimed to amend the RRs but seeking implementation of the DoPT OMs which are binding on MHA and in the context of challenging the CR-2016.

15. The ASG further submitted that, (a) G.J. Singh and Harananda supra having declared CAPFs as OGAS qua NFFU only, there is no need to amend the RRs for other things besides for ensuring benefit of NFFU; (b) that CAPFs are not All India Service but creatures of the Parliament; (c) just like Police is a State Service, CAPFs are functional oriented service; (d) neither in G.J. Singh nor in Harananda supra is there any declaration of CAPFs as OGAS for anything except NFFU; (e) DoPT has instructed him to state that counter affidavit filed by MHA may also be treated as on behalf of DoPT; (f) it is for the Cadre Controlling Authority to assess/review the amendment of RRs and no mandamus to do anything in a particular way can be issued; (g) the whole purpose of these petitions is to stop deputation in CAPFs; (h) G.J. Singh and Harananda supra have been fully complied with by grant of NFFU benefit and qua which no grievance has been urged; (i) no error with respect to the CR exercise has been pointed out--the same were carried out as per the DoPT OM dated 14th December, 2010 which does not recognise any difference between OGAS or Non-OGAS; (j) the objective of CR is to amend the structure based on functional requirements; (k) the Cadre Reviewing Authority has to work within the four corners of RRs and if feels any changes required are not possible without amendment of RRs, has to only suggest amendment of RRs; and, (l) MHA is best aware of the functional requirements and has decided that the existing cadre structure of CAPFs should continue.

23. The Supreme Court, in appeals against the judgment of this Court, in Harananda supra held that, (i) the issue in the appeals was non-grant of NFFU to members of CAPFs which the members of CAPFs were denied solely on the ground that CAPFs were not OGAS and were therefore not entitled to NFFU, as recommended by the 6th CPC; (ii) for considering the said issue, the objective of grant of NFFU, was required to be considered;

(iii) the 6th CPC recommended NFFU to all Group ‗A' Officers in various OGAS, to overcome the stagnation problem; the purpose of granting NFFU was to give relief to Group ‗A' Officers facing the problem of stagnation, as fall back option, when regular promotions do not come owing to various factors; (iv) it was not in dispute that CAPFs were facing huge problems of stagnation as promotions were not being granted as most of the promotional posts were filled in by deputation; on the other hand they were also being denied NFFU; (v) it was the case of the respondents that out of six attributes which as per DoPT OM dated 20th November, 2009 were required to be considered for treating and/or considering an organisation as OGAS, CAPFs did not satisfy attribute Nos.(iv) & (vi) of the DoPT OM dated 20 th November, 2009 and also because the 6th CPC did not recommend grant of NFFU to CAPFs; (vi) however CAPFs, in various documents, were shown to be part of Central Group ‗A' Services and once CAPFs had throughout, from 1986 onwards in the Monograph published by DoPT been part of Central Group ‗A' Services, it was not open to the DoPT to not consider CAPFs as OGAS; (vii) the DoPT OM dated 20th November, 2019 specifically noted that there may be certain ―minor deviations‖ from the attributes listed therein and that even when the listed criteria were fulfilled, the same will not automatically confer the status of an OGAS; thus, the High Court had rightly held that fulfilling/compliance of all the attributes should not be given too much weightage while deciding the status of CAPFs; (viii) it could not be said that CAPFs were not OGAS or not Group ‗A' Central Services; (ix) the 6th CPC was not authorised to define ―Organised Services‖ or to grant such status to any service; (x) the 6 th CPC did not recommend NFFU to CAPFs because the Government, inspite of showing CAPFs as Group ‗A' Central Services in all Monographs, must have represented to the 6th CPC that CAPFs are not Organised Group ‗A' Central Services; (xi) CAPFs had also been granted the benefit of recommendations of the 4th CPC qua Central Group ‗A' Services; (xii) thus, the High Court had rightly directed issuance of requisite Notification granting the benefits of NFFU as recommended by the 6th CPC, to members of CAPFs also; and, (xiii) the rights, if any of IPS Officers for appointment on deputation to some of the posts in CAPFs could not be said to have been affected by the judgment of the High Court and merely because some of the posts in CAPFs are required to be filled in by deputation also, grant of OGAS status would not affect the IPS Officers.