JUDGMENT

Najmi Waziri, J. These batch of writ petitions impugn the decision of the respondents whereby the petitioners? request for the grant of Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (for short `NFFU'), as applicable to other Group `A' Officers of the Central Government was rejected.

2. During the pendency of these proceedings, vide an order dated 26.09.2013, the Court directed the respondents to re-examine the issue regarding grant of NFFU to Group `A' officers of the Central Reserve Police Force, Border Security Force and Indo-Tibetan Border Police. However, vide an Office Memorandum (for short OM ) No. F. No. P.I.1/21022-Pers.DA-Pay dated 28.10.2013 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the issue was decided against the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners were given leave to file amended writ petitions to incorporate these subsequent events.

3. Hence, the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to grant them, i.e., Executive Group-A officers of CAPFs, the benefit of NFFU with effect from 01.06.2006, as given to other Officers of Group-A Service under PB-3 & PB-4, as issued vide Office Memorandum (OM) dated 24th April, 2009.

4. The petitioners further pray that they be formally declared as an Organized Group `A' Service with effect from 01.01.2006 with all consequential benefits. Finally, some of the petitioners also seek directions for amendment of the Recruitment Rules, i.e., CRPF Group-A (General Cadre Officers) Recruitment Rules, 2008 as notified on 10.08.2010 vide Notification No. GSR 679(E) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.

5. The petitioners had represented to the respondents that the Government of India through order No. AB./14017/64/2008-Estt. (RR) dated 11.07.2011 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, has granted NFFU to the Officers of Group-A Service in PB-3 and PB-4 after acceptance of the recommendations made by the 6th Central Pay Commission. The benefit has been conferred to such All India Service (AIS) officers who had been promoted after two years of service at the centre. However, it was not implemented in case of the petitioners although they were equivalent to the officers of corresponding status in the Government of India with respect to the all service conditions as per Rule 102 of CRPF Rules, 1955 which reads as under:

"CHAPTER XIII-APPLICABILITY OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT RULES AND ORDERS 102. Other conditions of Service: The conditions of service of members of the Force in respect of matters for which no provision is made in these rules shall be the same as are for the time being applicable to other officers of the Government of India of corresponding status."

6. The petitioners were aggrieved that they have been deprived of parity in benefits when compared to other Group A Service Officers apropos status, house allotment, TA, DA, travel entitlements, retirement benefits etc. Accordingly, they sought grant of NFFU at par with other Group A Services under the Central Government with effect from 01.01.2006. However, by the impugned for OM No. F. No. P.I.1/21022-Pers.DA-Pay, the Government rejected the request on the ground that the grant of NFFU is applicable to those Group A Services who are placed under the Central Staffing Scheme and come under `Organised' Group A Services to which the petitioners don't belong. Consequently, the line of argument in these petitions has broadly proceeded as under:

(i) What is NFFU?

(ii) What is `Organised Group A Services' vis-a-vis `Group A Services';

(iii) Whether the Government has regarded the petitioners as `Officers of Organised Group A Services';

(iv) If yes, whether they would be entitled to NFFU?

Contentions of the Petitioners

7. According to Ms. Jyoti Singh, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for some of the petitioners,would submit that simply stated NFFU is upward mobility in terms of Financial Up-gradation without disturbing duties, post or se