Medical Officers Of CAPFs Declared Part Of Organized Services | Delhi High Court Orders NFFU Benefits From 2006 In Parity With CHS
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur has held that the denial of Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) benefits to Medical Officers in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) is arbitrary and unjustified. The Court directed the concerned authorities to issue the requisite orders extending NFFU and other Sixth Central Pay Commission benefits to Medical Officers of BSF Health Services, CRPF Health Services, and ITBP Health Services within twelve weeks from the date of judgment.
The Bench found that despite long-standing parity between CAPF medical cadres and the Central Health Services (CHS), the petitioners were denied the same NFFU benefits already extended to CHS Medical Officers. This, the Court stated, contravened settled principles of equality before law and fair treatment. The Court concluded that the CAPF Medical Cadres fall within the Organised Group 'A' Services (OGAS) and are therefore entitled to all consequential benefits under the NFFU scheme introduced by the Sixth Central Pay Commission, effective from January 1, 2006.
The petitioners comprised serving and retired Medical Officers of the General Duty Medical Cadre of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), including BSF, CRPF, ITBP, and others. The writ petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the Respondents to grant all benefits of Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) and other entitlements as recommended by the Sixth Central Pay Commission to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) and Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) levels.
The petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 807 of 2021 were serving officers, while those in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 827 of 2021 were retired officers. The petitioners claimed parity with Medical Officers of the Central Health Services (CHS), under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, in terms of pay structure, promotional avenues, and service conditions.
As per the facts recorded, the restructuring of CAPF Medical Cadres was undertaken via Office Memorandum dated July 6, 1994, aligning their structure with the CHS. A subsequent letter dated December 12, 2000, increased the percentage ceiling for the grant of Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) from 15% to 30% to maintain this parity. Additionally, the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) scheme introduced for CHS officers in 2002 was extended to CAPF Medical Officers in 2003.
The Government later created a HAG-level post in 2004 titled Additional Director General (Medical) to head the integrated CAPF Medical Services. The petitioners claimed that this creation fulfilled the precondition for NFFU under the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations.
The petitioners asserted that, by virtue of the restructuring exercise and the DACP scheme, their career progression model mirrored the CHS, and thus they should be granted NFFU as extended to CHS officers. They referred to various Office Memoranda dated April 24, 2009; May 21, 2009; and September 25, 2009, which granted NFFU to Organized Group 'A' Services.
DoPT's OM dated April 2, 2012, excluded services already covered by DACP or Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) from receiving NFFU. However, the petitioners pointed out that this OM was later declared "non-est" via OM dated May 3, 2018.
The respondents, represented by counsels from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), submitted that the CAPF Medical Cadres were not formally recognized as OGAS. They further argued that the existence of DACP rendered the petitioner’s ineligible for NFFU.
In rebuttal, the petitioners stated that CHS officers, despite being covered under DACP, were granted NFFU following judicial intervention in Joint Action Council of Service Doctor’s Organisation v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1978. They relied on G.J. Singh v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11803, wherein CAPF Executive Cadres were held eligible for NFFU.
The petitioners also cited the Tenth Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission and multiple Monographs published by DoPT listing CAPF Medical Cadres among OGAS. Further, they pointed to parity in retirement age and other service conditions between CHS and CAPF medical officers.
A letter issued by Railway Board dated June 8, 2018, granting NFFU to Indian Railway Medical Service (IRMS) officers despite their DACP coverage was also brought to the Court’s attention.
The Court recorded "In view of the conflicting submissions as put forth on behalf of the parties, the principal issue before us is, whether the Petitioners, being serving and retired medical officers of the General Duty Medical Cadre of the CAPF, are entitled to the benefit of NFFU and other entitlements as per the recommendations of the 6th CPC effective from 1st January, 2006."
Discussing the objective of NFFU, the Bench noted "NFFU was essentially introduced for OGAS, a subset of the Central Civil Services (Group A), characterized by a hierarchical structure with different grades of posts and defined responsibilities. The objective is to prevent stagnation among non-promoted officers in cadres where promotional avenues are limited."
Addressing the claim of OGAS status, the Court referred to G.J. Singh v. Union of India and Sri Harananda v. Union of India, observing "It cannot be said that CAPFs do not constitute Organized Group ‘A’ Central Civil Services."
The Court rejected the Respondents' reliance on DoPT OM dated April 2, 2012, stating "OM dated 02.04.2012 has been subsequently declared as ‘non-est’ by the Government itself vide OM dated 03.05.2018, and hence, cannot be relied upon."
The Bench found no justification to exclude CAPF Medical Officers from the benefits extended to other similarly placed medical officers, recording "CHS Medical Officers were granted the benefit of NFFU pursuant to directions passed by this Court... Such parity must extend to the present petitioners."
The Court took note of the inclusion of BSF, CRPF, and ITBP Health Services in the list of OGAS as per the Tenth Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, observing "BSF Health Services, CRPF Health Services, and ITBP Health Services are also included as Group-A Central Civil Health Services under the Government of India."
It further recorded "Although the DACP scheme was applicable to CHS Medical Officers as per the 5th CPC recommendations, the benefit of NFFU under the 6th CPC was made available to such officers if, after the grant of benefits under DACP, a disparity existed between their pay and the pay drawn by IAS officers."
The Court summarized its conclusion as follows "The Medical Officers of the BSF, CRPF, and ITBP, like those of the CHS, would also be entitled to the benefits under the NFFU scheme as granted by the 6th CPC, regardless of their coverage under the DACP scheme."
The Division Bench directed "The respondents are hereby directed to issue the necessary orders granting the benefit of the NFFU scheme and other benefits under the 6th CPC to the Medical Officers of the BSF Health Service, the CRPF Health Service, and the ITBP Health Service, as part of OGAS with effect from 01.01.2006."
Further, the Court stated "The requisite orders shall be issued within twelve weeks from today."
It clarified the scope of the judgement "However, it is made clear that the grant of NFFU to eligible officers of these three health services, i.e., BSF, CRPF, and ITBP Health Services, would apply only if, after the benefits under the DACP scheme have been granted, a disparity exists between the pay of these officers in OGAS and the pay drawn by IAS officers posted at the Centre."
The petitions were accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms of these directions.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sagar Saxena, Mr. Parmeet Singh, Mr. Sarthak Pandey, and Mr. Krisnandu Haldar, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Ms. Shubra Parashar, Mr. Pushpender Singh Charak, Mr. A. Shukla, Mr. Neeraj (SPC), Mr. Vedansh Anand, Mr. Sachin Saraswat, and Mr. Soumyadip Chakraborty, Advocates
Case Title: Dr. Subodh Jha & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:4960-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 807/2021 & W.P.(C) 827/2021
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur
[Read/Download order]
