On 23 May, the Supreme Court delivered a long-awaited verdict on the issue of recognition of the five Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) as part of Organised Group-A Services (OGAS). These include the Border Security Force (BSF), the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), and Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB).
Accepting the CAPF as part of the OGAS, the two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held:
"When CAPFs have been declared as OGAS, all benefits available to OGAS should naturally flow to the CAPFs. It cannot be that they are granted one benefit and denied the other."Supreme Court of India
The present appeal by the officers of CAPF in the Supreme Court was necessitated because of selective implementation of the earlier orders of Delhi High Court in 2015. The judgment in favour of the CAPF officers has gone through several legal twists and turns—daon-pench, as they call it—over the last two decades.
This judgment will go a long way in addressing the issue of acute stagnation amongst the CAPF officers, besides resolving the issue of denial of rightful pay upgradations in a time-bound manner.
Why OGAS Matters
In order to understand the implications of the judgment, it is important to comprehend the essence of the OGAS and other connected aspects.
Group-A service refers to the cadre of gazetted officers in central government services—such as the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Revenue Service (IRS), Indian Railway Service, and the CAPF—who cater to different aspects of governance.
Organised Service (OGAS) refers to those services which fulfil certain criteria, the most important of them being that all the posts of the Group-A cadre of officers of a service, right from entry level till the level of ‘Joint Secretary’ (Inspector General in case of CAPF), should be filled only by promotion of officers of that cadre.
In other words, the provision of deputation from the outside does not exist in organised services because the expertise to man these higher level posts are available within the cadre of that service.
However, in case of CAPF, all the posts up to Inspector General were not available to the cadre officers because of provision of fixed quota of deputation of IPS officers at higher supervisory levels of Deputy Inspector General (DIG), Inspector General (IG), Additional General (ADG), and Director General (DG).
This is one of the most important reason for acute stagnation—and therefore attrition—amongst cadre officers of the CAPF. This also deprived the authorities of the rich experience and expertise that these officers had acquired in their operational domain, for policy formulation.
When IPS Led the CAPF
The IPS officers, with some honourable exceptions, were unable to understand the operational dynamics and cultural ethos of these large regimented forces. They tended to treat them as police, leading to policy gaps with regards to the role assigned to these forces.
The provision of deputation was being defended on by the IPS leaders on imaginary grounds such as operational necessity and historicity of the provision of deputation.
Ironically, one of the reasons cited for continuing the deputation of IPS officers was that its abolition would adversely impact the promotional avenues of IPS officers. The leadership was apparently only concerned with the interests of IPS fraternity, without any concern for the lack of avenues and acuteness of stagnation within the cadres of these forces.
The Supreme Court's order will correct the situation by abolition of deputation and making all higher posts available to the cadre officers. Implementation will also ensure that the expertise gained by experienced officers of CAPF will now be available at the higher supervisory and policy making levels, and thereby go a long way in enhancing national security.
In 2009, after the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the government introduced a scheme called Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU), in order to address the issue of acute stagnation, amongst many organised services.
The scheme provided for granting upgradation of pay to the officers of these services to higher levels, up to the level of Additional Secretary at prescribed intervals, irrespective of their actual promotion to those higher posts. This provision was implemented for all the over 60 organised services, except the cadres of CAPF.
This caused double jeopardy to the officers of CAPF, because they were neither getting promotion nor the benefit of elevation or pay and related benefits.
The order of Supreme Court, by unambiguously stating that “…. all benefits available to OGAS should naturally flow to the CAPFs. It cannot be that they are granted one benefit and denied the other,” will ensure that every eligible officer joining the force at entry level will be eligible for elevation of pay up to the level of Additional Secretary in due course.
Time for Timely, Fair Implementation
Now with the landmark Supreme Court judgment, there is no scope to deny CAPF officers their rightful benefits on specious grounds, as was done previously following the Delhi High Court's verdict.
At the time, authorities—guided by the advice of the IPS leadership heading these forces—failed to grasp the full extent of the acute stagnation within the CAPF, leading to the officers being deprived of their rightful dues.
The skewed interpretation of the Delhi High Court’s orders meant that neither the issue of stagnation, nor the financial loss to cadre officers was adequately addressed, resulting in only partial implementation.
One hopes that the Supreme Court’s orders will be implemented at the earliest, within the timeframe that has been set after due consultation with officers of these forces, as mandated by the court—thus bringing long-overdue closure to the festering issues faced by CAPF officers.
Going forward, authorities must adopt a holistic view and give well-considered advise on issues relating to different matters, particularly service-related issues, to prevent unnecessary litigation. It is important that the government moves away from the dubious distinction of being labelled as the country's biggest litigant.
(Sanjiv Krishan Sood (Retd) has served as the Additional Director General of the BSF and was also with the SPG. He tweets @sood_2. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)