On May 23, 2025 a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered a ground-breaking judgement recognizing the CAPFs as “Organized ‘Group A’ Services” (OGAS) and authorized the implementation of non-functional financial upgradation (NFFU).
The judgement in the Sanjay Prakash & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors case is an important milestone for the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) – including the CRPF, BSF, CISF, ITBP, and SSB.
Highlights of the Judgment
- The Court affirmed that CAPFs are OGAS for all purposes, not just for limited benefits like NFFU.
- Cadre Review in all the CAPFs which was due in the year 2021 be carried out within a period of six months as per OGAS.
- To review existing service rules/recruitment rules of each CAPFs within a period of six months as per OGAS.
- Eligible officers are entitled to Non-Functional Financial Upgradation, a benefit designed to address stagnation in career progression.
- The ruling directs structural reforms in cadre management, recruitment rules, and promotion policies to ensure parity with other Group A services like IAS and IPS.
- The Court also called for a progressive reduction in IPS officer deputations to senior CAPF posts within two years, aiming to empower CAPF officers to lead their own forces.
What is Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU)
Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) is a policy mechanism introduced by the Government of India to address stagnation in career progression of Group A officers in the Organized Group A Services (OGAS). Recommended by the Sixth Central Pay Commission in 2008 and implemented retrospectively from January 1, 2006, NFFU ensures that officers who are not promoted due to lack of vacancies still receive the financial benefits of higher grades. This upgradation is non-functional, meaning it does not involve a change in duties or responsibilities—only in pay scale and pension benefits.
Under NFFU, when an IAS officer of a particular batch is empanelled at a senior level, officers of OGAS from the same batch or two years senior are granted the same pay scale on a non-functional basis, provided they meet the prescribed eligibility criteria and performance benchmarks. This system was designed to bring parity between services and reduce frustration caused by limited promotional avenues.
For instance, whenever an Indian Administrative Service Officer of the State or Joint Cadre is posted at the Centre to a particular grade carrying pay in pay level-10 to pay level-15 in the pay matrix, officers who are senior to such Indian Administrative Service Officer by two years or more and have not so far been promoted to that particular grade, shall be granted the same level in the pay matrix on non-functional basis from the date of posting of the Indian Administrative Service Officer in that particular grade at the Centre in accordance with the instructions of the Government of India, issued on the subject from time to time.
However, so far CAPF organisations were denied NFFU because they were not recognised as OGAS in letter and spirit. This led to years of legal and administrative battles in courts as well as in MHA and DoPT.
The present judgement carries significant administrative and financial implications for the CAPF officers who have been engaged in a prolonged struggle for more than two decades. Their demand dates back to the Sixth Central Pay Commission in 2008, which acknowledged the stagnation in career progression among Group A officers and proposed NFFU as a corrective measure. It also suggested that CAPFs be granted OGAS status to ensure parity with other elite services like the IAS and IPS. However despite the recommendations, the government did not implement OGAS status or NFFU for CAPFs, leading to extensive frustration in the rank and file of the concerned organisations.
The issue gained traction in 2019 when the Supreme Court, in the Harananda case, recognized CAPFs as OGAS and directed that NFFU and other consequential benefits may be granted to ‘Group A’ officers of CAPFs. Cabinet notified CAPFs as OGAS. Ministry of Railways accepted the judgement and granted NFFU to the Railway Protection Force, reviewed and revised their Service Rules, and carried out cadre review and deputation of IPS to RPF has been denied except Director General. Thus they have been granted almost all benefits of OGAS as directed by the Hon’ble Court. However the Ministry of Home Affairs misinterpreted the judgement of the apex court and said that CAPFs were OGAS only for the limited purpose of granting NFFU. This partial recognition left ambiguity around cadre management and broader service benefits, prompting further litigation.
Over the years, CAPF officers filed multiple writ petitions in the Delhi High Court, demanding full recognition and the associated financial and promotional benefits.
Broader Implications
The point of contention is not just pay scales—but dignity, parity in service conditions and morale of forces and injustice to CAPFs who play a critical role in national security.
One of the most contentious aspects addressed was the continued deputation of IPS officers to senior CAPF posts. The Court directed that such deputations be “progressively reduced” within two years. Despite this, the Ministry of Home Affairs has continued appointing IPS officers to key positions, prompting concerns about compliance with the judgment. This is rather “progressively increasing” the deputationists.
This recent Supreme Court ruling is much more than a bureaucratic correction but a recognition of the dignity and professionalism of CAPF officers involved in border security and internal stability.
First and foremost, the ruling affirms the dignity and professional status of CAPF officers, placing them on par with other “Organised Group A Services (OGAS)”. Beyond financial benefits, the ruling mandates cadre restructuring, which means the government must revise recruitment rules, promotion policies, and organizational hierarchies to reflect the new status. This could lead to more internal promotions, fewer deputations from the IPS only in ADG and above ranks, that too only if eligible cadre officers are not available for promotion to ADG and above ranks, and a stronger leadership pipeline within the CAPFs themselves. The Court also criticized the continued practice of appointing IPS officers to top CAPF positions, arguing that it undermines the morale and progression of CAPF officers. By directing a reduction in such deputations, the judgment paves the way for CAPF officers to lead their own forces in the very near future, fostering greater institutional ownership, professionalism and accountability.
Moreover, the ruling has constitutional significance. It reinforces the principles of equality and non-discriminationunder Articles 14 and 16, asserting that CAPF officers cannot be denied benefits arbitrarily when they perform roles as critical as those in other Group A services.
Significantly the Railway Protection Force (RPF) was accorded Organised Group ‘A’ Service (OGAS) status following a Union Cabinet decision in July 2019, which was based on judicial directives from the Delhi High Court (2012) and subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court in February 2019. The formal notification renaming the cadre as the Indian Railway Protection Force Service (IRPFS) was issued by the Ministry of Railways on December 30, 2019. This recognition not only conferred parity with other Group ‘A’ services but also entitled RPF officers to benefits such as Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU), addressing long-standing concerns over stagnation and career progression.
A parallel can be drawn with the Indian Coast Guard (ICG) established in 1978 under the Coast Guard Act. Initially it relied heavily on deputations from the Indian Navy to fill senior leadership roles, given the nascent state of its own cadre. However, as the ICG developed its own training infrastructure, career progression pathways, and operational experience, the Ministry of Defence began to reduce naval deputations and promote in-house officers to command positions. This shift gained momentum in the late 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the appointment of Director General Rameshwar Singh, the first full-time cadre officer to head the ICG, in 2001. His elevation marked a symbolic and structural milestone, affirming the Coast Guard’s capacity to sustain its leadership internally.
Since then, all Director Generals of the ICG have been drawn from its own cadre, and command of ships, regional headquarters, and operational zones has been progressively handed over to officers who rose through the ranks of the Coast Guard itself. This transition has reinforced professional autonomy, enhanced morale, and aligned the service more closely with its statutory mandate as a distinct maritime force under the Ministry of Defence—separate from the Navy, yet complementary in its role.
Challenges in implementing these changes
However, implementing the Supreme Court’s ruling is not a straight forward issue. While the judgment itself is clear, there are many —legal, bureaucratic, and political challenges and obstacles that need to be overcome.
One of the foremost hurdles is the Government of India’s decision to file a review petition against the ruling, particularly objecting to the directive to reduce IPS deputations in CAPFs within two years. This move signals institutional resistance and delays the implementation of reforms that would empower CAPF officers to lead their own forces. Despite the Court’s explicit instructions, the Ministry of Home Affairs has continued appointing IPS officers to senior CAPF posts, undermining the spirit of the judgment. Since the IPS officers are posted at all the senior level posts where policy decisions are taken and they have easy access to MHA and DoPT, they are influencing the decision on the Court Orders through their counterparts in the higher bureaucracy. The voice of the CAPF officers does not reach to the ears of the government.
Another challenge lies in the bureaucratic inertia surrounding cadre restructuring. The ruling mandates the recognition of CAPFs as ‘Service’, changes to recruitment rules, promotion policies, and service conditions, but these require coordinated action from multiple departments, including the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and the Ministry of Home Affairs. Historically, such reforms have been slow, often mired in inter-departmental disagreements and procedural delays.
There’s also the issue of institutional mindset. CAPFs have long been treated as subordinate to the IPS in terms of leadership and policy influence. Shifting this paradigm requires not just legal compliance but a cultural change within the administrative machinery. Resistance from entrenched interests—especially those benefiting from IPS dominance in CAPF leadership—could stall or dilute the reforms.
Financial implications add another layer of complexity, though it’s minimal. Implementing NFFU and restructuring cadres will increase budgetary demands, which may face pushback from fiscal policymakers.
In short, while the ruling is a major step toward equity and recognition for CAPF officers role, its path to realization is strewn with institutional resistance, legal delays, and bureaucratic complexity. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether this judgment becomes a transformative milestone or another missed opportunity.
Legal challenges in detail
The legal challenges surrounding the implementation of the Supreme Court’s May 23, 2025 ruling on the CAPFs’ OGAS status are layered and complex, rooted in both constitutional interpretation and administrative resistance.
At the heart of the matter is the government’s review petition filed against the ruling, particularly objecting to the directive to “progressively reduce” IPS deputations in CAPFs within two years. This move signals a reluctance to relinquish bureaucratic control over CAPF leadership, despite the Court’s clear stance that such deputations hinder the career progression and autonomy of CAPF officers. The review petition keeps the matter sub judice, effectively pausing full implementation and creating legal uncertainty for thousands of officers awaiting parity.
Another challenge stems from the interpretation of prior Office Memoranda (OMs) issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), especially the one dated July 12, 2019, which had already recognized CAPFs as OGAS for cadre review and other related matters. The Supreme Court held that once a service is declared OGAS, all benefits—including NFFU, cadre restructuring, and promotional parity—must follow naturally. However, the government had previously treated this recognition narrowly, applying it only to NFFU and not to broader service conditions. This selective interpretation was criticized by the Court as a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality and non-discrimination.
The legal battle also involves conflicting judgments from lower courts, particularly the Delhi High Court, which had failed to consider the implications of the 2019 OM and earlier Supreme Court rulings like Harananda vs Union of India. The apex court corrected this oversight in Sanjay Prakash &Ors., but the inconsistency in judicial interpretation adds to the complexity of enforcement.
Furthermore, the case touches on constitutional principles of administrative equity. The petitioners argued that denying CAPF officers the same career progression and leadership opportunities as their counterparts in in IPS and other Organised Group ‘A’ Services violates the spirit of equal treatment under the law. The Court agreed, emphasizing that CAPFs play a vital role in national security and deserve institutional recognition commensurate with their responsibilities.
In summary, the legal challenges are not just about interpreting a single judgment—they reflect a broader struggle over administrative control, constitutional rights, and the balance of power between civil services. The outcome of the review petition and the government’s willingness to comply with judicial directives will determine whether this ruling becomes a transformative precedent or remains mired in procedural delays.
Implications of the conflicting judgments
The conflicting judgments surrounding the OGAS status and NFFU entitlement of CAPF officers have created a legal quagmire that has delayed reforms, fostered uncertainty, and undermined administrative consistency. These contradictions—particularly between earlier High Court rulings and the Supreme Court’s definitive stance in Sanjay Prakash &Ors. vs Union of India &Ors.—have far-reaching implications.
For years, CAPF officers relied on fragmented judicial interpretations to assert their claim to parity with other Group A services. The Delhi High Court, for instance, had previously declined to extend blanket OGAS recognition and refused to mandate the removal of IPS deputation posts, despite the existence of a DoPT Office Memorandum from July 2019 that clearly treated CAPFs as OGAS. This created a situation where officers were granted NFFU in truncated form but denied broader cadre benefits, leading to inconsistent service conditions across forces and regions.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sanjay Prakash sought to resolve this ambiguity by consolidating multiple appeals and affirming that CAPFs are OGAS “for all purposes,” not just for NFFU. It criticized the High Court’s failure to consider relevant precedents and official documents, calling its conclusions unsustainable. However, the existence of these earlier judgments still complicates implementation. Government departments may cite them to justify delays or partial compliance, especially while the review petition remains pending.
This judicial inconsistency also affects morale and institutional trust. CAPF officers who have long felt side-lined now face a situation where their legal recognition is clear, but administrative action remains hesitant. It raises questions about the enforceability of Supreme Court directives when lower court rulings and bureaucratic inertia continue to muddy the waters.
In essence, the lengthy court proceedings and the delayed court judgments have prolonged a state of limbo—where though the legal clarity exists, but practical execution is stalled due to vested interests of a powerful lobby of IPS officers sitting at the crucial decision making levels. Until the Supreme Court reasserts its authority in response to the review petition and compels full compliance, the transformative potential of the Sanjay Prakash ruling remains unrealized.
The way ahead:
The Supreme Court’s recognition of CAPFs as Organized Group A Services marks a pivotal shift toward restoring parity, professionalism, and morale within the ranks. To ensure strategic coherence and institutional integrity, leadership must emerge organically from within the CAPFs—grounded in field experience, nurtured through structured progression, and committed to the unique ethos of each force. Only then can these vital pillars of national security fulfill their mandate with the autonomy, dignity, and effectiveness they deserve.
