NFU and the silent discrimination against the uniform

Why NFU is not a “demand” but a question of justice

The issue of Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) is often mischaracterised as a demand for privilege by the Armed Forces. This narrative is incorrect, misleading, and deeply unjust. NFU is not about financial gain or career acceleration; it is about correcting a structural discrimination imposed by the State itself.

Officers of the Armed Forces do not compete in an open market. Their careers are governed by statutory pyramidal structures, exit policies, and command vacancies that are institutionally imposed, not performance-driven. When such a system results in lifelong financial and status disadvantage compared to civil services of the same batch, the Constitution’s promise of equality stands violated.

Non-functional upgradation (NFU) in Its true sense

NFU is a mechanism whereby an officer is granted the pay scale and grade parity of a higher rank when officers of the same batch in another service reach that level without granting command authority, seniority, or functional role.

What NFU Does:

• Protects officers from stagnation due to non-availability of vacancies
• Maintains inter-service batch parity
• Prevents artificial downgrading of officers due to organisational design

What NFU Does NOT Do:

• It does not promote the officer
• It does not give command or decision-making power
• It does not disturb the chain of command
• It does not create new posts

NFU is thus administrative equity, not organisational interference.

Pyramidal structure of armed forces: A structural handicap

The Armed Forces function on a steep pyramid, essential for combat efficiency:

• Large base of junior officers
• Rapid thinning at senior levels
• Statutory exits at multiple stages
• Supersession not linked to misconduct

This is fundamentally different from civil services, where:

• Hierarchies are broader
• Time-bound promotions dominate
• Exit pressures are minimal
• Lateral stagnation does not end careers

As a result:

• An Army officer may retire as a Colonel despite exemplary service
• His IAS batch-mate may reach Additional Secretary or Secretary level

This divergence is not due to merit, but design.

Punishing officers for structural necessities is institutional injustice.

Historical context: How IAS officers secured NFU

NFU was introduced primarily to address stagnation in Group ‘A’ civil services, ensuring parity with IAS officers. Over time:

• IAS officers benefitted disproportionately
• Other civil services were granted NFU
• Armed Forces officers were excluded

This exclusion occurred despite:

• Higher entry standards
• Greater personal risk
• Earlier retirement
• Absolute service liability

The exclusion of the Armed Forces from NFU is thus an anomaly, not a policy inevitability.

Constitutional perspective: Equality is substantive, not cosmetic

Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws. Equality does not mean treating unequal situations identically; it means addressing disadvantage fairly.

Armed Forces officers are:

• Subject to military law
• Denied fundamental rights
• Judicial proceedings are governed by court martial
• Barred from unions and protest
• Exposed to combat and hardship

Denying NFU while granting it to civil services of the same batch is hostile discrimination, not reasonable classification.

Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT): Judicial recognition of discrimination

The issue of NFU was examined by the Armed Forces Tribunal, which after detailed consideration held that:

• Denial of NFU to Armed Forces officers is arbitrary
• Structural stagnation cannot justify permanent disadvantage
• Parity principles must apply across services

The Tribunal’s findings were grounded in:

• Service jurisprudence
• Constitutional principles
• Government’s own precedents

Yet, implementation was delayed, resisted, and appealed reflecting executive reluctance, not legal infirmity.

The myth of financial burden

One of the most frequently cited objections is cost.

This argument fails on facts:

• Armed Forces officer cadre is limited
• NFU impacts only pay, not posts
• Pension outflow is marginal compared to defence budgets
• Cost is negligible relative to national expenditure priorities

If the nation can afford:

• Large administrative expansions
• Post-retirement sinecures
• Political entitlements

Then denying NFU on fiscal grounds is disingenuous.

Impact on status, command and civil-military balance

Rank and status are not symbolic in governance they are functional.

Denial of NFU affects:

• Inter-ministerial interactions
• Joint postings
• Diplomatic and protocol engagements
• Post-retirement institutional roles

When a senior military commander is placed administratively below junior civil officers of the same batch, authority erosion becomes institutionalised.

This weakens:

• Civil-military balance
• Decision-making confidence
• Strategic respect for military advice

The psychological and moral injury to the officer corps

The Armed Forces are built on honour, not grievance. Officers internalise sacrifice as duty. However, systemic neglect creates silent moral injury.

Effects include:

• Loss of institutional faith
• Normalisation of injustice
• Forced acceptance of inequality
• Suppression of legitimate grievance

This does not create rebels it creates resigned professionals, which is more dangerous for a fighting force.

Why officers remain unaware or silent

Many officers:

• Do not understand NFU
• Are unaware of long-term implications
• Avoid confrontation due to discipline ethos

The Chetwode Credo, meant to inspire selflessness, is often misused to rationalise deprivation.

Sacrifice must be honoured not exploited.

Why litigation became inevitable

Litigation is a failure of governance.

Officers turned to courts because:

• Representations were ignored
• Committees delayed decisions
• Political will was absent
• Executive accountability was missing

Litigation reflects institutional immaturity, not officer indiscipline.

Political amnesia: Remembered only in crisis

The Armed Forces are invoked during:

• Wars
• Terror attacks
• Natural disasters

But forgotten during:

• Pay commissions
• Policy formulation
• Administrative reforms

This selective remembrance undermines national integrity.

The state’s moral and constitutional obligation

The Government is not a benefactor it is a trustee.

It owes Armed Forces officers:

• Fair treatment
• Institutional respect
• Structural correction
• Career dignity

NFU is a minimum corrective measure, not a concession.

Conclusion: National security begins with institutional justice

A nation that asks its commanders to:

• Risk life
• Surrender rights
• Retire early
• Remain silent

Cannot deny them:

• Parity
• Status
• Dignity

Non-Functional Upgradation is not about money it is about whether the Republic honours those who defend it.

If the State continues to delay justice, the cost will not be financial it will be institutional decay.

It is time the nation rose not in slogans, but in responsibility.