Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. All the civil appeals came to be disposed of by this Court vide the judgment and order dated 05.02.2019 in Harananda (supra). There were two groups of appeals. One group pertained to declaration of Railway Protection Force (RPF) as an OGAS within a definite timeframe with further direction to extend all the benefits conferred on OGAS to RPF. The other set of appeals dealt with the grievance of CAPFs relating to rejection of the request for grant of NFFU in respect 2012 SCC OnLine Del 6001 of which the High Court had directed the respondents to issue requisite notification granting benefit of NFFU as recommended by the Sixth Central Pay Commission. 11.1. Insofar the first group of appeals are concerned, this Court examined the OM dated 20.11.2003 of the DOPT and considered as to whether under the said OM an ‘in principle’ decision was taken for constitution of the RPF as an OGAS. High Court had treated the said OM as an ‘in principle’ decision for constitution of the RPF as an OGAS, thereafter directing further steps for cadre restructuring of RPF and also to finalize the service rules with reference to the RPF as an OGAS. This Court noted that from the judgment and order of the High Court it was evident that the same was a consent order. This Court further noted that it was never disputed by any of the respondents that the OM dated 20.11.2003 was not an ‘in principle’ decision of the DOPT for constitution of the RPF as an OGAS. Therefore, this Court held that it was not open to the Union of India to challenge the judgment of the High Court whereby further direction was issued by the High Court that necessary cadre structure of RPF as also the service rules should be finalized with reference to RPF being an OGAS. This Court affirmed the aforesaid judgment and order of the High Court and also found that even on merits, Union of India had no case. This Court declared that RPF was rightly treated and considered as an OGAS and that the High Court was fully justified in directing Union of India and others to take further steps for cadre restructuring of the RPF and to finalize the service rules with reference to the RPF being an OGAS. 11.2. Insofar the second group of appeals are concerned, this Court noted that the High Court had allowed the challenge of the appellants by quashing OM dated 28.10.2013 and the related letters whereby their request for grant of NFFU was rejected whereafter the High Court directed the respondents to issue requisite notification granting the benefit of NFFU as recommended by the Sixth Central Pay Commission to the appellants belonging to the CAPFs.

11.3. This Court noted that the issue in the aforesaid appeals was non-grant of NFFU to the appellants serving in CRPF. NFFU was being denied solely on the ground that CRPF is not an OGAS. According to the respondents out of the six attributes which are required to be considered for treating and/or considering an organization as an OGAS, CRPF did not satisfy attributes (iv) and (vi) and also on the ground that the Sixth Central Pay Commission did not recommend grant of NFFU to CAPFs.

24. Now, so far as another ground on which CRPF are denied NFFU that the 6th Central Pay Commission did not grant NFFU to CAPFs is concerned, it is required to be borne in mind that the Central Pay Commission, as such, is not authorised to define “Organised Services” or to grant such status to any service. The recommendations would be made by the Central Pay Commission on the basis of the information submitted to it by the various Departments. It appears from the material on record that right from 1986 onwards, in various Monographs CAPFs were included in the list of Group A Central Civil Services. The Government took “U” turn and a stand was taken that CAPFs are not Organised Group A Central Services and, therefore, on the basis of such a stand, the Department must have  given the information to the Central Pay Commission and, therefore, the 6th Pay Commission did not recommend NFFU to CAPFs. Therefore, merely because the 6th Pay Commission did not recommend to grant NFFU to CAPFs — Group A Officers in PB-III and PB-IV, the Group A Officers in PB-III and PB-IV cannot be denied NFFU, which otherwise is granted to all the Officers of Group A Central Civil Services.

11.6. Therefore this Court held that merely because the Sixth Central Pay Commission did not recommend grant of NFFU to CAPFs, the same could not be denied.

11.7. Thereafter, this Court held that the High Court was fully justified in directing the respondents to issue requisite notification granting NFFU to the CAPFs and concluded as under:

24.2. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the objects and reasons of the grant of NFFU as recommended by the 6th Pay Commission, when the High Court has observed and consequently directed that the officers in PB-III and PB-IV in the CAPFs are Organised Group A Service and, therefore, entitled to the benefits recommended by the 6th Pay Commission by way of NFFU and thereby has directed the appellants to issue  a requisite notification granting the benefits of NFFU as recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission, it cannot be said that the 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.