It’s not that the Gazetted Officers, hereinafter called the cadre officers, of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) only are aggrieved with the way they have been treated by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) under successive Governments, rather the Non Gazetted Officers (NGOs) have also been suffering from the discriminatory treatment meted out to them. This sorry state of affairs is a byproduct of many factors and the net result is that the officers and men of CAPFs have been knocking on the door of the judiciary every now and then even for small benefits which are extended to similarly placed employees of other departments of Central Government. Therefore, very recently a new expression, “Court Administered Police Force” has emerged as the full form for CAPF.The Border Security Force (BSF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) together are termed as Central Armed Police Force (CAPF). They are very important constituents of national security mechanism of our country. BSF, ITBP and SSB are the three main border guarding forces. BSF guards the Indo-Pakistan and the Indo-Bangladesh borders. ITBP guards the Indo-Tibetan border. SSB guards the Indo-Nepal and the Indo-Bhutan borders. The above border guarding forces form the first line of defence during peace time. CISF is engaged in industrial security and security of vital installations. CRPF is the lead internal security agency of the country which fights Maoists in Left Wing Extremism affected areas, insurgents in North Eastern parts of the country and Terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir. The officers and men of these forces work day in and day out to ensure safety and security of our country. But they are forced to knock on the door of judiciary for benefits like, Ration Money, House Rent Allowance, Special Duty Allowance (SDA) for deployment in North Eastern Region, Risk and Hardship Allowance, Promotion etc. However, the Hon’ble Courts have rendered justice which shows that the officers and men have been subjected to discrimination and ultimately they have got justice from the Courts.Chanakya, known also as Kautilya gave his king this blunt warning: The day the soldier has to demand his dues will be a sad day for Magadha for then, on that day, you will have lost all moral sanction to be King”. The CAPFs are headed by the Indian Police Service (IPS) officers who come on deputation for a temporary period and are not empathetic to the problems faced by the cadre officers and their men. The cadre officers and their men maintain political neutrality which is the essence of their role and, therefore, no political party is ready to espouse their cause. Unlike civilian employees they cannot form association to protect their service interests either and, therefore, they cannot work as pressure group to get their lawful demands accepted by the Government. They are called upon in all emergency situations to preserve law and order or providing soothing effect to the common public at the time of natural and manmade disasters when the machinery of State Government comes to a standstill. But at the end of the day they are treated as “Step Soldiers”.
The latest important litigations, which are going on, are the Pension to the officers and men of CAPFs who have joined these forces after 01.01.2004 and the benefits of OGAS (Organised Group ‘A’ Service) to cadre officers of CAPFs.
Vide Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs) (ECB & PR Division) Notification, New Delhi, dated the 22nd December, 2003, F. No. 5/7/2003-ECB & PR, the Central Government has introduced a new restructured defined contribution pension system for new entrants to Central Government service, except Armed Forces, in the first stage, replacing the existing system of defined benefit pension system. The Para (i) of the notification reads as under:
(i) the system would be mandatory for all new recruits to the Central Government service from 1st of January, 2004 (except the armed forces in the first stage).
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Akhilesh Prasad Vs Union Territory Of Mizoram on 11 February, 1981, held that the CRPF squarely falls within the expression “Armed Forces of the Union” as used in sub- section (2) of Section – 197 of the Cr.P.C. All other CAPFs are also armed forces of the Union.But in spite of clear notification, pension has been denied to the officers and men of CAPFs who have joined after 01.01.2004. This decision of the Government has been challenged by the affected employees of CAPFs in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide a Writ Petition which is yet to be finalised. The episode of OGAS status for cadre officers of CAPFs and consequent benefits of NFFU (Non Functional Financial Upgradation) is quite interesting.
The Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), dated 24.04.2009 has conveyed as under:
Consequent upon the acceptance of the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the following orders are issued:
(i) Whenever an Indian Administrative Services (IAS) Officer of the State or Joint Cadre is posted at the Centre to a particular grade carrying a specific grade pay in Pay band 3 or Pay Band 4, the officers belong to batches of OGAS that are senior by two years or more and have not so far been promoted to that particular grade would be granted the same grade on nonfunctional basis from the date of posting of the IAS Officers in that particular grade at the Centre.
(ii) Grant of higher scale would be governed by the terms and conditions given in Annex - I.
(iii) Appropriate amendments in the Service Rules (SRs) may also be carried out.
ILLUSTRATION:- If officers of 1987 batch of IAS are empanelled as Joint Secretary in the grade pay of Rs. 10,000/- in Pay Band - 4 and an officer of the batch gets posted in the Centre (under Central Staffing Scheme) on 15th January 2008, all the officers of the 1985 batch of organised Group A Central Services who have not been promoted to the Joint Secretary or equivalent grade and who are eligible for the same on 11/11/2007 for the panel year 2007-08, would be appointed to the same grade on non-functional basis under these instructions w.e.f. 15/01/2008. Same would be the case in the event of posting of an officer of particular batch as Deputy Secretary/ Director under Central Staffing scheme.
The cadre officers of CAPFs had applied to their respective departments for benefits of NFFU. Since they were denied the said benefits on the ground that CAPFs are not OGAS, they had filed Writ Petition in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.After a decade long battle in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Hon’ble Supreme Court, the cadre officers of CAPFs had won the case finally on February 05, 2019, in which the Government was directed to grant to the former, the benefits contemplated by the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) by way of Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) to remove disparity between All India Services and other Organised Central Group “A” Services (OGAS). Accordingly, on 3 July, 2019, the Union Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi has approved the proposal for extension of benefit of NFFU and Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) to Group “A” Executive Cadre Officers of CAPFs.However, the orders of the Hon’ble Courts and the Union Cabinet have been implemented by the MHA, Government of India half heartedly. Therefore, the cadre officers of CAPFs have initiated contempt proceedings against the Government in both the Hon’ble Courts which has led to a proverbial situation of “justice delayed is justice denied”.Fresh Writ Petitions were filed by all the CAPFs in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi praying for direction to the CAPFs for amendment of Recruitment Rules (RRs) so that residency periods for promotion to next higher ranks are reduced and made similar to those of other OGAS to get financial benefits at par with them, stoppage of IPS deputation up to Senior Administrative Grade (SAG, i.e., IG rank) similar to other OGAS and conducting of Cadre Review afresh for creating more posts at higher levels to address to the problem of acute stagnation of cadre officers in each rank. All the five Writ Petitions were clubbed together by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi under the heading of R.M. Meena Vs Union of India.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in it’s judgement in R.M. Meena Vs Union of India, dated 27.07.2020, inter alia, has held the following:
(i) CAPFs have now by judgments in G.J. Singh and Harananda supra been treated as OGAS, but expressly qua NFFU only and from neither of the said judgments, we are able to decipher any directive of declaring CAPFs as OGAS for all purposes whatsoever. Moreover till the date of the OMs dated 24th March, 2009 and 15th December, 2009, G.J. Singh supra had not been pronounced and in G.J. Singh supra no relief with respect to OM dated 15th December, 2009 was granted.
(ii) That CAPFs and RPF, the two are under different Ministries, governed by different Rules and have different structure. No case of discrimination or of CAPF being meted out inequal treatment also is thus made out.
However, it is required to mention here that in G.J. Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors, date of Decision: 03.09.2015, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held as under:
“81. ………………….The Court is of the view that the presence of reports and other documents explicitly stating the CAPFs are an Organised Group “A” Service evidences that they have been constituted consciously and through established procedures.
84. The issue of acknowledging the petitioners as OGAS has been pending for some time like a festering wound. From the preceding discussion, the Court would note although from the government records it can clearly be seen that the Petitioners have over and over again been recognised as OGAS, an element of obfuscation has been kept alive. It cannot be over emphasised that in matters relating to the armed forces and the paramilitary/ CAPFs there ought to be clarity and certainty apropos the service benefits which the forces would be entitled to. An element of greater dispatch in taking decisions governing their service conditions would always be requisite. Therefore, to the extent that the OM dated 19/20.11.2009 and OM dated 28.10.2010 themselves leave scope for interpretation, it could well be said that there is a level of arbitrariness in them. The government having repeatedly acknowledged the Petitioners in their various communications as belonging to OGAS cannot be allowed to reprobate there from.
85. In view of the above, the Court is of the view that the petitioners, i.e., officers in PB-3 and PB-4 in the CAPFs (CRPF in the present instance) have been categorised under Organised Group “A” Service ever since the year 1986. Hence, the benefits contemplated by the 6th CPC by way of NFFU to remove disparity between All India Services and other Organised Central Group “A” Services, ought to be granted to them. Accordingly, the impugned OM dated 28.10.2010 and all other letters whereby the petitioners’ request for the grant of NFFU was rejected, cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed.
86. In view of the above, the Writ Petitions are allowed. The respondents shall issue requisite notification granting the benefits of Non Functional Financial Upgradation as recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission to the Petitioners within eight weeks from this order.”
Against the above order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in G.J. Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors, the MHA filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court of India.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs Shri Harananda, on 5 February, 2019, in which the case of G.J. Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors was clubbed, held as under: “24. Now, so far as another ground on which the CRPF are denied the 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 “Organized 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 Organized 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 the NFFU, which otherwise is granted to all the Officers of Group “A” Central Civil Services.
24.1 It is also required to be noted that, as such, the CAPFs were granted the benefit of recommendations of 4th Pay Commission, more particularly, the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme which was given to the Central Group “A” Civil Services.
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 Organized 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.
25. In view of the facts and circumstances, present Appeals arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 35548¬35554 of 2015 and 13937/2016 deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstance of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.”
From the above it is quite clear that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide it’s judgement, dated 27.07.2020 in R.M. Meena case has completely overturned it’s earlier judgement, dated 03.09.2015 in G.J. Singh case and the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, dated 05.02.2019 in Harananda case.
It is quite interesting that the Indian Police Service Officers (Central) Association (IPSCA), which was not at all in the scene till final order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in G.J. Singh, became a party to the SLP in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
IPSCA is an illegal association as far as it’s effort to protect the career interests of the IPS officers is concerned. Para – 3 of The Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 act no. 33 of 1966 reads as under:
3. Restrictions respecting right to form association, freedom of speech, etc. -
(1) No member of a police-force shall, without the express sanction of the Central Government or of the prescribed authority,
(a) be a member of, or be associated in any way with, any trade union, labour union, political association or with any class of trade unions, labour unions or political associations; or
(b) be a member of, or be associated in any way with, any other society, institution, association or organisation that is not recognised as part of the force of which he is a member or is not of a purely social, recreational or religious nature; or
(c) communicate with the press or publish or cause to be published any book, letter or other document except where such communication or publication is in the bona fide discharge of his duties or is of a purely literary, artistic or scientific character or is of a prescribed nature.
Explanation.—If any question arises as to whether any society, institution, association or organisation is of a purely social, recreational or religious nature under clause (b) of this sub-section, the decision of the Central Government thereon shall be final.
(2) No member of a police-force shall participate in, or address, any meeting or take part in any demonstration organised by any body of persons for any political purposes or for such other purposes as may be prescribed.
It is clear from the above that members of police forces can form only such associations, which are of a purely social, recreational or religious nature only.
In a reply to RTI Application filed by Mrs. Nutan Thakur, wife of Shri Amitabh Thakur, IPS, U.P Cadre, the MHA has intimated that it has not given permission to IPS officers to form association. The illegal IPSCA has fought tooth and nail along with MHA in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs Shri Harananda and in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in R.M. Meena Vs Union of India to not allow cadre officers to occupy all the posts upto IG (SAG) in CAPFs and other consequential benefits of OGAS, like NFFU, proper and timely cadre review etc. The MHA also has not implemented the orders of Hon’ble Courts and Union Cabinet in letter and spirit. Many posts of DIG in CAPFs, which are kept reserved for IPS to come on deputation, have been lying vacant since last about 10 years because no IPS wants to come to DIG post because it is a field posting. They prefer to come only to IG and above posts available in Delhi and other metropolitan cities. The following rank-wise fixed percentage of different senior level posts have been kept reserve for IPS in CAPFs:
(i) DG - 100% IPS on deputation
(ii) SDG - 100% IPS on deputation
(iii) ADG – 66-2/3% IPS on deputation
(iv) IG - 50% IPS on deputation
(v) DIG - 18% IPS and 2% Serving Army Officer on deputation (or 2% retired Army Officer on re-employment).
Therefore, the promotional avenues of cadre officers for occupying higher posts have been blocked due to such reservation of posts.
The promotional norms prescribed in RRs of CAPFs are stringent and residency periods in each grade or post are more than those of other OGAS. The benefits of NFFU are being calculated on the basis of existing RRs in which residency periods are more. Therefore, very few officers are getting the benefits of NFFU. Secondly, for allowing financial benefits under nonfunctional scheme all promotional criteria are being followed which is quite discriminatory.
The policy of the Central Government on filling up senior level posts of CAPFs has been very clear since beginning. Relevant parts of M.H.A. UO No.17/06/70-Pers-II, dated 16/05/70 initiated by the then DG, BSF, Shri J.C. Pandey reads as under:
“2. We are not in favour of having any fixed percentage of appointment of officers from any particular source.”
Similarly, relevant parts of M.H.A. UO No.10286/Pers-I, dated 01.09.1970, initiated by the then DG, CRPF reads as under:
“There is no provision in the CRP force rules, 1955 regarding reservation of posts of IPS/ Army/ State Police Officers for appointment to the posts of DIG, Commandant and Assistant Commandant. As such there is no question of amending the CRP Force rules. Our intention was not to insert new CRP Rule but to obtain Govt’s approval for the working formula. The percentage of IPS officers proposed by us in different ranks are intended to meet the requirements of the Force and may be taken as a working formula; the percentages proposed may be approved in principle and additional IPS officers deputed to the CRP force accordingly.”
Even Shri L.P.Singh, the then Secretary, MHA, on a note dated 14.10.70, has mentioned as under:
“Firstly, it has to be ensured that all senior posts in the CRP are filled with men who are fully qualified and equipped to command the Force. Finding avenues of promotion for officers of the IPS cannot be the over-riding objective. It is an objective which can be pursued only to the extent consistent with the efficiency of the force. Secondly, the force must provide adequate avenues of promotion to those it recruits as gazetted officers and also to those who are recruited at lower levels. It would be very harmful to the morale of the Force if in our anxiety to put IPS officers as Commandants we were to deny promotion to Assistant Commandants who have a great deal more experience of armed police work and have proved themselves fit for promotion in every way.
2. I do not think statutory reservations would be advisable. This would restrict freedom of choice in a manner that might prove detrimental to the efficiency of the Force. It has also to be remembered that there might be periods when a substantial part of the CRP has to be deployed on troubled borders or on anti-insurgency duties. In such a situation there would be advantage in having as Commandants of battalions officers with experience of the armed forces or officers with long and meritorious service in the CRP itself. Flexibility which is now available must, therefore, be maintained.
3. Subject to what I have said above I agree that our working rules should be as proposed by the DG CRP with the modification suggested by JS in regard to the rank of DIG. I should also like to add that I do not myself see much prospect of our getting 29 suitable IPS officers as Commandants and 8 as Assistant Commandants. As against the proposed total figure of 37 we have got only 14 officers. With increased recruitment to the IPS the position may improve, but even when the cadres are well stocked the number of officers with aptitude for or experience in armed police work will/ rise appreciably.”
Therefore, it is quite clear that even when there was shortage of sufficient number of cadre officers to occupy senior level posts, no reservation for IPS officers was made and deputation of IPS was just a working formula to run CAPFs. But over a period of time such reservation of higher level posts have been made at the cost of career prospects of cadre officers.
On the issue of promotion of CAPFs, the Committee of Estimates (Chairperson: Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi) in it’s report, dated 16.03.2018 has observed that top positions in CAPFs are occupied by IPS officers. This has a demoralising effect on the officers of the CAPFs, and impacts the effectiveness of the forces. The Committee recommended that the top positions should be filled from the respective cadre of the CAPF. In addition, there was frustration in CAPFs due to stagnation in promotions and lack of cadre review. The Committee recommended that cadre review of all the CAPFs should be carried out within a defined timeline.The Seventh Central Pay Commission in Para – 11.22.15 of it’s report has mentioned that as an interim measure having regard to the career aspirations of Group ‘A’ officers of CAPFs, it is recommended that such officers should get sufficient opportunity to man senior positions in their organisations. Accordingly, the percentage of posts currently earmarked for IPS officers and other officers on deputation should be reviewed and these posts also be thrown open to Group ‘A’ officers of CAPFs. The CAPF officers should not be precluded from the opportunity to man the highest post in their respective organisations if they are otherwise eligible. Service Rules may be amended accordingly and officers from CAPFs may be made eligible for manning the highest post.
The Seventh Central Pay Commission in Para – 11.22.20 of it’s report has mentioned that further, with a view to ameliorate the difficulties faced by the officers owing to stagnation at various levels, the Chairman felt that NFU should be extended to the CAPFs and Defence forces as well. Both of them have, citing high level of stagnation, sought NFU on the same lines as has been granted to the Organised Group ‘A’ Service. Having regard to the legitimate career aspirations of the CAPFs/ Defence on the principles of equity, the Chairman is of the considered view that NFU should be extended to the CAPFs and Defence forces as well. The number of non-functional upgrades may be limited to two, as it is in the case with Organised Group ‘A’ Service. These two upgrades should, logically be at the two levels just above those where the system of time-bound promotions ceases. These are also the stages at which the stagnation levels are high.The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs headed by Shri P. Chidambaram, in Para – 6.10.8 of it’s report on Working Conditions in Non-Border Guarding Central Armed Police Forces (CISF, CRPF and NSG), presented to Rajya Sabha on 12.12.2018, has recommended that the Government may re-examine the Rule 6 (1) of the IPS Cadre Rules, 1954 for fixing a limited percentage of deputation of IPS officers in the CAPFs keeping in view the interest of CAPFs personnel. The Committee also recommended that not more than 25% posts should be reserved for Officers coming on deputation, either from IPS or from the Armed Forces, in any rank, and there should be no reservation for the posts of Director General in any CAPF and the officers of the CAPF cadres should be given equal opportunity to the reach the topmost ranks. The Committee also viewed that this measure will not only go a long way to boost the morale of the CAPFs but will also provide a bigger pool of qualified officers for selecting the heads of CAPFs.
Rule 6 (1) of the IPS Cadre Rules, 1954 reads as under:
Deputation of cadre officers:
A cadre officer may, with the concurrence of the State Government or the State Governments concerned and the Central Government, be deputed for service under the Central Government or another State Government or under a company, association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Central Government or by another State Government.
Provided that in case of any disagreement, the matter shall be decided by the Central Government and the State Government or State Governments concerned shall give effect to the decision of the Central Government.
Relevant paragraphs of Office Memorandum No. I-21023/29/2007-IPS.III, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, dated, the 30th March, 2010, on Tenure Policy for IPS officers on Central deputation are reproduced below:
2.3 Every State cadre of the IPS provides for a Central deputation quota which in turn requires additional recruitment to be made to the Service to provide for trained and experienced members to serve on posts in the Central Government. Accordingly, utilization of the Central deputation quota of different State cadres is an important factor governing the scale at which officers are borrowed from the various State cadres of the Service. However, no post so filled by a member of IPS on deputation can be deemed to be a cadre post of the parent State. Similarly, no individual member of IPS can claim any right to appointment to a post under the Government of India.
5.2 The normal tenure of officers working in CPMFs will be extended by a period of 2 years in the case of an officer who has served for a minimum period of 2 years in a “hard area”, as specified in the Annexure, subject to a maximum tenure of 7 years. The list of “hard areas” may be revised by the Ministry with the approval of ACC.
5.4 The period spent by officers on deputation to SVP National Police Academy, Hyderabad, the North Eastern Police Academy, Shillong and CPMF posts in “hard areas” will count as one-half for the purpose of computing tenure at the Centre, subject to the condition that such officers serve for at least 3 years in the said organizations/ posts. This will also be subject to a maximum tenure of 7 years at the Centre.
In Paras 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Tenure Policy for IPS officers on Central deputation, Regulation of tenure in IB, Regulation of tenure in RAW, Regulation of tenure in NIA and Regulation of tenure in CBI respectively are given. In Para 11, lateral transfer to CPO (Central Police Organisation) has been explained. The IB, RAW, NIA and CBI are known as CPO in which maximum percentage of senior level posts are reserved for IPS. There is provision for long duration deputation to these CPOs and also there is provision for permanent absorption there.
In Sub Paras 5.2 and 5.4 above the term CPMFs and CPMF posts are mentioned. CPMF stands for Central Para Military Forces. No such regulation is provided for CPMFs (Central Para Military Forces) in the Tenure Policy for IPS officers on Central deputation. All the CPMFs, i.e., BSF, CISF, CRPF, ITBP and SSB are Armed Forces of the Union as per Entry (2) of List I in Schedule VII of the Constitution of India.
BSF, CISF, CRPF, ITBP and SSB together were termed as CPMF earlier. But the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, vide order No. I-45020/2/2011-Pers-II, dated the 18th March, 2011, has changed the nomenclature of these Armed Forces of the Union from CPMF to CAPF to make them look like Central Police so as to continue IPS deputation to these forces.
In the whole episode of legal battle by cadre officers and MHA, it is quite clear that everything has been done at the behest of IPS lobby and to protect the interests of the IPS officers only at the cost of career interests of cadre officers. It is quite ironical that the cadre officers do not have any say in their service matters and they are treated as outsider in their own organisation. It’s really painful that all the recommendations of various committees for better career prospects and financial upgradation of about 12000 cadre officers of CAPFs have been brushed aside by the MHA just to ensure comfortable life of a handful of IPS officers during their deputation to CAPFs. Not only that, even though maximum number of posts of DIG have been lying vacant continuously for about last ten years due to non availability of IPS officers, these posts are neither being filled up with cadre officers nor being abolished. Keeping so many senior level posts vacant for years together is not only depriving the cadre officers of their lawful rights but also putting the national security at risk. This is one of the contributing factors for low level of motivation of cadre officers which ultimately adversely affects the efficiency of the force. Because a de-motivated commander can not inspire confidence among his subordinates.
Promotion of officers in CAPFs are vacancy based. In the prevailing conditions of CAPFs, an officer who had joined as Assistant Commandant (AC), i.e., JTS, has been languishing in the same rank itself for last 9-10 years. There are many officers who had joined CAPFs as directly appointed AC, especially in BSF and CRPF, have not yet been promoted to the rank of Commandant (Selection Grade) even after putting in 21 years of service. Many Commandants and DIGs (both the ranks belong to Junior Administrative Grade) have been carrying the same rank badges for last more than 12 years and even after putting in on an average of 27 years and 30 years of service respectively, they have not been found eligible for grant of SAG.
This abnormal situation has come up because MHA is the Cadre Controlling Authority (CCA) of both IPS and CAPFs. Since the IPS officers are close to power centre they have been able to manage everything in their favour. Both CAPFs and RPF were declared OGAS by the same order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harananda case as mentioned above. The Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) vide Gazette Notification, New Delhi, dated the 17th January, 2020, No. 2020/E(GR)I/16/1 has declared RPF as Indian Railway Protection Force Service (IRPFS) consequent upon grant of Organized Group ‘A’ status (OGAS) to RPF in the light of Cabinet’s decision arising from Hon’ble Courts’ orders. But the MHA has not implemented the Cabinet’s decision arising from Hon’ble Courts’ orders in case of CAPFs, rather it, along with IPSCA, has strongly opposed cadre officers of CAPFs both inside and outside the Courts. Therefore, one of the observations of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in R.M. Meena case was that CAPFs and RPF, the two are under different Ministries, governed by different Rules and have different structure. No case of discrimination or of CAPF being meted out inequal treatment also is thus made out.
The Fundamental Rights of our Constitution have been borrowed from the U.S Constitution. In the United States, the motto of the Justice Department – carved into the rotunda of the Attorney General’s office is –
“The United States wins its case whenever justice is done to one of its citizens in the courts.”
But in the case of CAPFs, not only IPS lobby but also the ASG (Assistant Solicitor General), the Advocate on behalf of MHA, Government of India, has left no stone unturned in the court to deprive the cadre officers of CAPFs of their lawful dues. The above facts and circumstances clearly show that the career and comfort interests of IPS officers have always been protected by the MHA at the cost of morale, motivation and career interests of about 12000 cadre officers of CAPFs. Hence, it is high time that a separate Ministry of Internal Security is constituted which can look after the entire subject of internal security of the country including the service interests of thousands of cadre officers and lakhs of subordinate officers and other ranks of the CAPFs. This will strengthen the internal security mechanism of the country and help in it’s prosperity.
Written by Smt. Madhumita Patra, a proud wife of a CAPF Officer (Email ID – [email protected]. The views are personal.