Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. These batch of writ petitions impugn the decision of the respondents whereby the petitioners‟ request for the grant of Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (for short 'NFFU'), as applicable to other Group „A‟ Officers of the Central Government was rejected.

2. During the pendency of these proceedings, vide an order dated 26.09.2013, the Court directed the respondents to re-examine the issue regarding grant of NFFU to Group „A‟ officers of the Central Reserve Police Force, Border Security Force and Indo-Tibetan Border Police. However, vide an Office Memorandum (for short OM ) No. F. No. P.I.1/21022-Pers.DA-Pay dated 28.10.2013 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the issue was decided against the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners were given leave to file amended writ petitions to incorporate these subsequent events.

6. The petitioners were aggrieved that they have been deprived of parity in benefits when compared to other Group A Service Officers apropos status, house allotment, TA, DA, travel entitlements, retirement benefits etc. Accordingly, they sought grant of NFFU at par with other Group A Services under the Central Government with effect from 01.01.2006. However, by the impugned for OM No. F. No. P.I.1/21022-Pers.DA-Pay, the Government rejected the request on the ground that the grant of NFFU is applicable to those Group A Services who are placed under the Central Staffing Scheme and come under „Organised‟ Group A Services to which the petitioners don‟t belong. Consequently, the line of argument in these petitions has broadly proceeded as under:

         (i)     What is NFFU?
         (ii)    What is „Organised Group A Services‟ vis-a-vis „Group A
                 Services‟;

(iii) Whether the Government has regarded the petitioners as „Officers of Organised Group A Services‟;

(iv) If yes, whether they would be entitled to NFFU?

Contentions of the Petitioners

7. According to Ms. Jyoti Singh, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for some of the petitioners,would submit that simply stated NFFU is upward mobility in terms of Financial Up-gradation without disturbing duties, post or seniority. She would argue that according to the current rule position, there is only Group „A‟ Services and the introduction of the word „Organised‟ is merely an innovation. The expression „Organised Group-A Services‟ has no sanction of law because the law only recognises the term „Group A Services‟. She refers to Rule 5 of Constitution of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) (for short CCS-CCA) Rules, 1965 which reads as under:

24.In compliance of the order dated 26th September, 2013 passed by the Court in these proceedings, the Government re-examined the issue of grant of NFFU to Group - A Executive Officers of BSF, CRPF, SSB, CISF and ITBP and concluded Group „A‟ officers in the said forces are not Organized; due to the existing organizational structure, command and control set up of the CAPFs, it was not possible to grant NFFU or any other financial scheme to Group „A‟ officers of the CAPFs apart from the benefits and allowances already being provided to them; however, they may place their demand for the grant of NFFU to them before the 7th Central Pay Commission which has already been constituted by the Government.