What 7 CPC has recommended about NFU for easy reading

Grant of Non Functional Upgradation (NFU) 

to Defence Service Officers

6.2.33. In the Joint Services Memorandum, the Defence Services have pointed out that the VI CPC, in its Report, extended Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to Organised Group ‘A’ Services. Such benefit was however not granted to the Defence Service Officers, which, in their view is an anomaly. It has been pointed out by the Defence Services that the grant of NFU to Organised Group ‘A’ Services in Ministry of Defence which operate alongside the defence forces like MES, Border Road Organisation, and Survey of India etc. has created command, control and functional problems.

Analysis and Recommendations

6.2.34. The deliberations in the context of whether NFU, presently available to Organised Group ‘A’ services, should be allowed to continue or not have been elaborated in Chapter 7.3. The aspect of grant of Non-functional upgradation to officers of the Defence Forces was also discussed at length. After considering the various aspects the Chairman felt that NFU should be allowed to continue since it has existed for the last 10 years and is being availed by all the Organised Group ‘A’ Services. Therefore the Chairman did not propose to abolish it.

6.2.35. 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 officers of the Defence Forces and CAPFs (including ICG) as well. The manner in which NFU is to be regulated in the Defence Forces is discussed in Chapter 11.22.

6.2.36.        Shri Vivek Rae and Dr. Rathin Roy, Members, Seventh CPC, have not agreed with the views of the Chairman. They are of the considered view that NFU till SAG and HAG level, granted to Organised Group ‘A’ Services, should be withdrawn. They have also not supported extension of NFU to Defence Forces and CAPFs, including ICG. The rationale for their views has been elaborated in paras 7.3.29 and 7.3.30 of the Chapter 7.3 on Central Services, Group ‘A’ and is not being repeated here.

Non-functional Upgradation

7.3.18 To address the wide disparity existing between the promotional avenue available to different Organised Group `A’ Services and to bring about some sort of “modified parity” between the IAS and other Central Group` A’ Service the VI CPC had recommended the grant of higher pay scale on non-functional basis to officers belonging to batches of Organised Group `A’ Services which were senior by two years as compared to the batch of IAS empanelled at the Centre. As per extant orders, whenever an IAS Officer of any state is posted to the centre to a particular grade carrying a specific grade pay in Pay Band 3 or Pay Band 4, the officers belonging to batches of the Organised Group `A’ Services 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 non-functional basis from the date of posting of the IAS Officer in that particular grade at the Centre. Such upgradation is not vacancy–linked and the benefit in pay is purely personal to the officer.

7.3.19. While this has no doubt afforded a limited quantum financial upgradation, and a few attendant benefits by way of entitlement to a higher type of house etc., such non-functional upgradation does not bestow any right to the officer to claim promotion or deputation benefits. However, what was seen as a partial curative measure, with the expectation that the real issue would be addressed through better management of the various cadres, has not really come about. Instead the situation is that the demand for grant of NFU has now become a wider chorus, with officers of the Defence forces and the CAPFs also claiming a like benefit. The demands of the CAPFs and the Defence forces have been discussed in detail in Chapters 11.22 and 6.2 respectively.

7.3.20. The issue with regard to the grant of NFU was deliberated in the Commission. The issue was whether NFU presently available to Organised Group `A’ Services should be allowed to continue or not and whether it should be extended to the Defence forces and CAPFs or not.

7.3.21. After considering various aspects, especially the difficulties faced by the officers owing to stagnation at various levels, the Chairman is of the considered opinion that NFU should be allowed to continue. Since NFU has been in existence for the last ten years and is being availed by all the Organised Group `A’ Services, there is no reason to abolish it. The same will be available not only to all Organised Central Group `A’ Services but also members of CAPFs and Defence forces on the basis of respective residency periods.

7.3.22. The NFU should be subject to the completion of the prescribed residency period in the preceding substantive grade and not linked to the promotion of an IAS batch. All the prescribed eligibility criteria and promotional norms including ‘benchmark’ for upgradation to a particular level would have to be met at the time of grant of NFU. A screening committee chaired by the Secretary of the Ministry concerned would oversee the implementation of NFU. The Committee would consist of three members of at least one level above the level for which upgradation is being considered. These orders are currently also in existence.

7.3.23. On grant of NFU, the pay fixation of the officer concerned will happen through a two-stage process:

Step 1: Initially one increment to be added to the existing pay, which takes the person on to the next cell in the current level in which he/she resides.

Step 2: The figure closest to this amount is to be located in the next promotional level and the pay fixed in that step. No fixation in pay will take place when the substantive promotion is earned in that level subsequently.

7.3.24. Further, to ameliorate the stagnation in various services, the Chairman recommends that officers drawing NFU would also be eligible to apply for deputation posts in the higher grade through empanelment in the Central Staffing Scheme as well as to posts outside the Central Staffing Scheme.

7.3.25 Shri.Vivek Rae, and Dr.Rathin Roy, Members, Seventh CPC have not agreed with the view of the Chairman. Shri Vivek Rae has elaborated the case for withdrawal of NFU from Organised Group `A’ Services as below:

a) “In order to address the wide disparity in career progression across different Organised Group `A’ Services (Central Services) and to bring about some parity between the IAS and Organised Group `A’ Services, the VI CPC had recommended grant of a higher pay scale on non-functional (NFU) basis as per details brought out in para 7.3.18. NFU is presently available to IPS, IFoS and Organised Group `A’ Services till SAG and HAG level after a gap of two years compared to an IAS officer of the same batch who is posted at the Centre at the SAG or HAG level. The Chairman, Seventh CPC has proposed to dilute these provisions by linking NFU with “residency” period and removing the two year gap vis-à-vis IAS officers. The Chairman, Seventh CPC has also proposed to extend the NFU dispensation to Defence Forces and CAPFs.

b) After considering the matter carefully, the undersigned is of the view is that instead of further relaxing provisions relating to NFU and expanding the scope, NFU dispensation approved by the Government of India pursuant to recommendations of the VI CPC needs to be withdrawn for the following reasons: In the normal course, career progression in a cadre or service depends on the functions assigned to the service, which in turn dictates the shape of the organization structure, including the steepness of the pyramid. “An organisation is a set of roles graded in authority,” and as the saying goes, “Form follows Function.” Some services have a large base and a steep pyramid, as is the case with the Defence Forces, the CAPFs and some of the slow moving Organised Group `A’ Services, especially the Technical and Engineering services. There are other Group `A’ Services which have a high level interface with stakeholders and, therefore, enjoy more rapid career progression in view of a larger number of posts available at SAG level and above. Such services include the Indian Foreign Service. A cursory look at the list of 49 Organised Group `A’ Services indicates the wide variety of roles and responsibilities envisaged for these services, ranging from the Indian Foreign Service, the Indian Postal Service, the five Accounts services, Indian Revenue Service (IT), the thirteen Engineering services under the Railways, CPWD, Telecom, Power, Water and Defence Forces, the Indian Naval Armament Service, Central Architect Service, Indian Inspection Service, Indian Ordinance Factories Service, three Health Services, Geological Survey of India, Defence Aeronautical Quality Assurance Service, Defence Quality Assurance Service, Survey of India, Group `A’ Service, Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service and Central Labour Service (illustrative list). To strive for uniform career progression across such a diverse set of services and cadres, with widely varying functions, violates fundamental management principles relating to organisational structures. Such a dispensation, with automatic career progression till HAG level, completely buries the concept of merit based career progression and undermines considerations of efficiency and accountability. In effect, the present policy dispensation converts already weak organizational pyramids in Organised Group `A’ Services into broad cylinders, when in fact, considerations of efficiency and accountability require that the existing cylinders be converted into steeper pyramids.

c) Linking career progression in all Organised Group `A’ Services and IPS/IFoS with IAS is based on highly fallacious notions of parity and fair play. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court has pointed out in Mohan Kumar Singhania versus Union of India and others in the judgement delivered on 13 September, 1991, “the selection for IAS, IFS and IPS, Group `A’ services and Group `B’ services are made by a combined competitive examination and viva-voce test. There cannot be any dispute that each service is a distinct and separate cadre, having its separate field of operation, with different status, prospects, pay scales, the nature of duties, the responsibilities to the post and conditions of service, etc. Therefore, once a candidate is selected and appointed to a particular cadre, he cannot be allowed to say that he is at par with others on the ground that all of them were selected by a combined competitive examination and viva-voce test and that the qualifications prescribed are comparable. In our considered view, the classification of the present case is not based on artificial inequalities but is hedged within the salient features and truly founded on substantial differences. Judged from this point of view, it seems to us, impossible to accept the submission that the classification rests on an unreal and unreasonable basis and that it is arbitrary and absurd.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court has set out the position with great force and clarity. Seeking uniform career progression for all Organised Group `A’ Services and IPS/ IFoS on par with IAS on grounds of parity and equal treatment is, therefore, simply not tenable. Seeking uniform career progression even among Organised Group `A’ Services till the highest levels in the hierarchy is also not tenable. The principle of “equality of opportunity” cannot be stretched to mean “equality of outcomes.”

d) Prior to the VI CPC, the scheme for time bound promotion was broadly uniform across All India services, Organised Group `A’ Services and the Defence Forces in that three time bound promotions were available at Senior Time Scale, Junior Administrative Grade and Selection Grade in the first 13 years of service. Officers of the All India Services and Organised Group `A’ Services reached the selection grade (GP-8700) in 13 years while the equivalent progression in the Defence Forces was till the level of Lt. Col. (GP-8000) in 13 years. Officers in the Defence Forces were able to reach GP-8700 in the rank of Col. (Selection Scale) in 15 years (“residency” period) with the remaining Lt. Cols. reaching the Col. (Time Scale) in 26 years. (It may be noted that complete parity between the Defence Forces and civil services has never been possible because of the steep rank structure and additional ranks in the officer cadre in the Defence Forces).

e) All promotions beyond GP-8700 in the Defence Forces and the civil services to higher levels were subject to availability of vacancies in the respective cadre. This broad parity was disturbed by granting NFU to IPS, IFoS and Organised Group `A’ Services after the VI CPC report, without a similar dispensation being extended to the Defence Forces. Consequently, the Defence Forces officers, who are in no way lower in status or responsibility than Group `A’ Central Services, though not classified as such, have fallen steeply behind IPS/IFoS and 49 Organised Group `A’ Services. This has undermined the status and morale of the Defence Forces and has been a matter of serious concern for them over the last decade. As the Defence Forces have pointed out in their joint service memorandum (JSM), the Defence Forces face an acute problem of stagnation because of their rank structure, and if there was a case for NFU at SAG and HAG level, it should have been given to the Defence Forces before anybody else. In fact, the policy out-come was the reverse, whereby the less disadvantaged Organised Group `A’ Services reaped the maximum benefit on untenable grounds of parity withIAS. The undersigned agrees with the view that exclusion of Defence forces from NFU has been unfair. The gap between career progression in the Defence forces in comparison with 49 Organised Group ‘A’ Services and IPS/IFoS, which was already large, has been stretched beyond reasonable limits (emphasis supplied by Aerial View).

f) In their JSM, the Defence Forces have asked that NFU be extended to Defence service officers, mutatis-mutandis. Prior to extension of NFU to Defence Forces, they have suggested that the Grade pay of officers be revised as under:

S. No	Rank	Existing Grade pay (₹)	Proposed Grade pay (₹)
1	Lieutenant	5400	5400
2	Captain	6100	6600
3	Major	6600	7600
4	Lieutenant Colonel	8000	87000
5	Colonel	8700	9000
6	Brigadier	8900	9500

[Spelling mistakes corrected by Aerial View]

g) The matter regarding higher grade pay for Defence Forces officers has been examined and it has not been possible to agree to the demand for higher grade pay, as elaborated in Chapter 6.2. Consequently, the grant of NFU cannot be considered, mutatis mutandis. In their supplementary memorandum, the Defence Forces have further recommended that the grade pay for Defence Forces officers be determined by delinking it from rank and linking it with the length of service. Defence Forces have pointed out that beyond the rank of Col., due to adverse cadre ratio, Defence Forces officers attain higher grade pay much later than their civilian counterparts. For example, Defence Forces officers get the GP 10,000/- (Joint Secretary/SAG) at 32 years of service (0.60 percent officers get this) as against 18-20 years of service in respect of IAS and Organised Group `A’ Services (100 percent officers get this). Majority of Defence Forces officers retire at much lower grade pay compared to their civilian counterparts. They have accordingly proposed that a Defence Forces officer should get the same grade pay as the civil service officer gets for the same length of service. This would imply grant of SAG scale for the same batch of Defence Forces officers on par with Organised Group `A’ Services, in the same time duration (i.e 18-20 years).

h) The Defence Forces have stated that they fully meet the attributes of an Organised Group `A’ Service, promulgated by DoPT, and there is no basis for denying them NFU simply on the ground that they are not classified as an Organised Group `A’ Service.

i) The Defence Forces have also highlighted that they have lost status in a multi-cadre involvement with respect to the following Organised Group `A’ Services with whom the Defence Forces have a close interface (officers of Defence Forces are also deputed to these organizations):

i. Indian Naval Armament Service;

ii. Indian Ordnance Factories Service;

iii. Indian Defence Service of Engineers (MES);

iv. Defence Aeronautical Quality Assurance Service;

v. Defence Quality Assurance Service;

vi. Defence Research and Development Service

vii. Survey of India Group `A’ Service

viii. Border Roads Organization.

j) Defence Forces have further pointed out that while they have time bound promotion till GP 8700 (Colonel), the glaring difference with the civil services is that the Col. Rank (Selection grade) (GP-8700) is achieved at 16-21 years of service (even though “residency” period is 15 years) while Colonel (time scale) reaches this in 26 years. In comparison, officers of Organised Group `A’ Services reach GP 8700 in half the time i.e., 13 years. The pyramid is much steeper in the Defence services at higher levels.

k) The proposal of the Defence Forces to delink grant of NFU from rank and link it with length of service can be considered in several ways:-

i. Option-I: If NFU is granted to Defence Forces officers on par with Organised Group `A’ Services, it would imply sanctioning SAG scale to all Defence Forces officers of a particular batch in the same timeframe as available for officers of Organised Group `A’ Services. Consequently, all Defence Forces officers of each batch would get SAG scale in about 18-20 years, regardless of the “residency” period for SAG scale. It is only in this manner that full parity can be established between the Defence Forces and Organised Group `A’ Services. However, this would imply that officers of Lieutenant Colonel rank with 13 years of service and Colonel rank (selection scale) with 15 years of service would get SAG scale in 18-20 years, thereby resulting in a triple promotion for Lieutenant Colonels and a double promotion for Colonels(Selection scale). The principle of merit based selection for Colonel (Selection scale) and also for higher levels would also be undermined. This would wreak havoc with the rank structure in the Defence Forces and is clearly not a tenable proposition. In no organisation can pay be delinked completely from rank.

ii. Other options: The other options available will not serve to bring Defence Forces officers on par with Organised Group `A’ Services. For instance, if grant of NFU is linked with “residency” period, (i.e) qualifying service in the next lower post, then Lieutenant Colonels (time scale) would get Colonel’s scale in 26 years, as they presently do. They would not be eligible for Brigadier’s scale since only Colonel (selection scale) is eligible for promotion as Brigadier, a position for which Lieutenant Colonel (time scale) has not been found fit. All Colonels (selection scale) would be eligible for pay scale of Brigadier after 23 years on completion of the “residency” period. This would obliterate the distinction between Colonels selected for the rank of Brigadier on substantive basis from Colonels overlooked, and would undermine the principle of merit based progression in the armed forces. Similarly, all Brigadiers would get SAG scale in 25 years after completion of the “residency” period, while only a select few would pick up the rank of Major General in about 32 years. This would again undermine merit based promotions in the Defence Forces, and create a false sense of parity based on pay scales. From the above, it is evident that the earliest a Defence Forces officer can get SAG scale is in 26 years (that too for a select few) compared to 18-20 years in Organised Group `A’ Services (sought to be further reduced to 17 years). Grant of NFU to Defence Forces officers, keeping in view the rank structure and “residency” period would, therefore, continue to perpetuate the disparity between Defence Forces officers and Organised Group `A’ Services. This disparity can never be bridged unless option-I is considered. The same logic applies to CAPFs.

l) The special problems that the Defence Forces face with regard to the eight Organised Group `A’ Services, with whom they have a close interface, also cannot be resolved under the existing NFU dispensation. At the same time, the dissonance between the Defence Forces and these 8 Organised Group `A’ Services, as well as the adverse impact on command and control, is clearly an undesirable and unacceptable outcome which has lowered the morale and status of Defence Forces officers. Such a situation cannot be allowed to continue. The only way in which some semblance of parity can be restored is by withdrawing NFU from Organised Group `A’ Services.

m) It is clear that the idea of linking NFU for the Defence forces with the “residency” period does not bring the Defence forces on par with Organised Group `A’ Services. Even otherwise, the idea of linking NFU with the “residency” period is untenable. In the case of CRPF (CAPF), the “residency” period for IG scale is 24 years. On this basis, officers in CAPFs will pick up the SAG scale in 24 years as compared to 25 years for Defence Forces. In the case of IAS/ IPS/IFoS, the residency period for SAG scale is 16 years/ 18 years/18 years. For HAG scale the residency period is 25 years. In the case of Organised Group `A’ Services, the residency period is 17 years for SAG scale, 20 years for HAG scale, 21 years for HAG+ scale and 22 years for Apex scale, as per DoPT O.M. dated 12 March, 2010. Consequently, an officer in a fast moving Organised Group `A’ Service could well get HAG scale in 20 years compared to 25 years for IAS/IPS/IFoS. Since empanelment under CSS is proposed to be linked with “residency” period, officers of fast moving Organised Group `A’ Services could also claim to be empanelled at HAG level in 20 years. None of the above outcomes is acceptable on the basis of well established relativities of the civil service structure. The basis for fixing “residency” period is arbitrary across services, and bears no relationship with actual career progression in different services. Even otherwise, the “residency” period only indicates the minimum qualifying service required to move to the next level. It can by no means be construed to be an automatic trigger for moving to the next level. The concept of “residency” period therefore cannot provide a valid basis for grant of NFU.

n) The main impact of NFU on Organised Group `A’ Services has been accelerated financial progression by delinking pay scale from rank. The case for this accelerated financial progression beyond the level of NFSG (Director) is weak, considering that Director level functionaries across all services, including the Defence Services and CAPFs, were the biggest gainers from the pay hike announced by GoI after submission of the VI CPC report. Director level functionaries received a pay hike of 56.3 percent compared to Deputy Secretary (16.4%) and Joint Secretary (7.5%). This was a veritable bonanza awarded by GoI at the Director level (GP-8700). In addition, GoI sanctioned a liberal regime for increments at the rate of 3 percent per annum (compounded) within expanded pay bands. This regime enables Director level functionaries to reach the SAG scale through passage of time, even if they do not get any further promotion. In this situation, there was no case for further financial upgradation in a time bound manner through NFU, till the level of SAG and HAG (emphasis by Aerial View).

o) In the view of the undersigned, it was a mistake to grant NFU to 49 Organised Group `A’ Services, IPS and IFoS till HAG level on untenable grounds of parity with IAS. Exclusion of Defence forces and CAPFs only aggravated the mistake. This mistake will be further aggravated by extending NFU to Defence forces and CAPFs as proposed by Chairman, Seventh CPC in para 7.3.21. The domino effect of such a dispensation on unorganised Group `A’ Services, Group `B’ Services and Group `C’ Services would follow, with demands for NFU already being raised by some of these groups. Further, it would not be long before the last bastion (i.e.,) Apex scale is breached by the NFU juggernaut on grounds of parity with the IAS. This would certainly merit mention as a world record for career progression in government bureaucracies (emphasis by Aerial View).

p) The rationale for rejecting grant of NFU till SAG and HAG level to Defence Forces has been explained by Ministry of Defence as: 

“The issue was examined in the Ministry by a Committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary. The Committee in its report which was accepted by the government has noted that the service conditions of Defence Forces are quite different from those of civilian employees. Benefits in the form of Military Service Pay and various allowances are also available to the Defence Forces officers which are not available to civilian officers. It is, therefore, not logical to compare the earnings of two services. Further, Defence Forces officers are covered by a separate time bound promotion scheme upto the level of Colonel. The scheme of non-functional upgradation is applicable only for Organised Group `A’ Services and was extended to IPS/IFS. The requirements related to command and control, the norms for recruitment, promotion and the rank structure of the Defence Forces are not identical to those of Group `A’ cadres. The average age of entry of Commissioned Officers is lower than that of those joining Group `A’ Services. In view of the above, the Committee did not make any recommendation on this issue.”  

The above rationale applies equally to 49 Organised Group `A’ Services who have been extended NFU. The requirements related to command and control, the norms for recruitment, promotion and the rank structure in the 49 Organised Group `A’ Services can vary widely, depending on the functions performed by each service. These 49 Organised Group `A’ Services simply cannot be painted with the same brush. The rationale for rejection of NFU for Defence Forces, therefore, applies equally to the 49 Organised Group `A’ Services. Further, the average age of entry has no bearing on this matter since the vast majority of officers of Defence Forces also retire much earlier (emphasis by Aerial View).

q) After careful consideration of the matter and evaluation of various options, the undersigned is of the view that NFU at SAG and HAG levels should be withdrawn from all Organised Group `A’ Services and the status quo ante prevailing prior to the VI CPC restored. All promotions beyond NFSG (Director) level (Grade pay 8700) should be based on availability of vacancies and there should be no non-functional upgradation in any service beyond this level. Each service must progress as per its cadre structure and senior level positions and pay scales should not be available to everybody as a matter of course. Cadre reviews should be undertaken in respect of services which face slow career progression beyond NFSG level, and the problem addressed through better cadre management. In no organisation can pay be delinked completely from rank, with officers claiming entitlement to the highest pay scales without occupying the corresponding rank.

r) At best, Housing and Travel entitlements at SAG level should be given across the board to all services including Defence forces, CAPFs and unorganised Group `A’ Services, on completion of 25 years of service, in case SAG scale has not been granted on substantive basis by then. This will provide some relief to slow moving services like the Defence forces, CAPFs, and Technical Group `A’ Services, which are the most disadvantaged because of their steep pyramidal structures. Existing beneficiaries under the prevailing NFU dispensation may be allowed to avail the higher entitlements to Housing and Travel on a “personal” basis. Their salary may be fixed in the new pay matrix as per the relevant “fitment” factor (to ensure pay protection), but in replacement scales equivalent to scales they were drawing prior to grant of NFU. The other option is to give replacement scales based on NFU scales. GoI may take a view in the matter, as appropriate.”

7.3.26 Dr. Rathin Roy, Member, Seventh CPC has further elaborated the case for withdrawal of NFU as below:

a. In para 7.3.6 of the Chapter 7.3, the Commission noted that “there is pervasive feeling of inequity which is leading up to a sense of disenchantment.” To address this, a number of recommendations have been made by different Central Service Group `A’ associations on pay, career progression, employment etc. One of these pertains to Non- Functional Upgrade (NFU). The Chairman’s views on the subject have been recorded in paragraphs 7.3.21 to 7.3.24.

b. I, along with my colleague Mr. Vivek Rae, am in dissent with this view. While in complete agreement with his views on the matter, I wish to make the following additional observations to clarify the reasons for my dissent:

1. “The Group-A Central Service officers as well as All India Service Officers are recruited at an entry level which corresponds to junior management. Through efflux of time, in 13 years, all officers so recruited who fulfil minimum performance and ethical standards and maintain discipline are guaranteed promotion to a level equivalent to the substantive rank of Director in the Government of India. Such time-bound and speedy career progression to upper middle management grade is extremely rare, if not unique, in Civil Services worldwide.

2. Over and above this rapid promotion, all Central Service Group-A officers are presently entitled to the same pay and allowances that a Joint Secretary to Government of India is entitled to, within two years of the substantive attainment of that rank at the centre by an officer of the IAS through NFU. The Chairman proposes to further extend this NFU from the senior administrative grade to the higher administrative grade for officers who put in requisite number of years. In practice, this would mean that all officers who have joined government sufficiently early would secure non substantive pay and allowances equivalent to the current HAG grade.

3. In my opinion the granting of NFU at the upper middle and upper levels of the civil service is detrimental to both efficiency and incentive based career progression. It is right and appropriate, as in the case of Armed Forces, that some pyramidal structure be maintained so that the pay and allowances drawn by officers are accorded for occupying a substantively higher level of responsibility. Selection for higher levels necessarily needs to be merit based, not seniority based. The NFU concept completely negates this (emphasis by Aerial View).

4. Most Group `A’ Central Services are already highly cylindrical in nature and therefore it is not the case that there exist limited opportunities to aspire to substantive promotions to HAG grade within these services. In any case, the appropriate instrument to design a career structure, and to allow for suitable career progression opportunities at the senior level consistent with the needs of the jobs done by different Group-A personnel, is the cadre review mechanism on which this report has deliberated at some length.

5. Common recruitment for different services does not mean an automatic entitlement to equity in career progression. In my view, there is no automatic entitlement or benchmarking of promotions in any specific service relative to any other service, whether Group-A Central Service or All India Services. If the above principle were not maintained, then in the interest of equity, it would be unacceptable to apply different principles to the Civil Services, Armed Forces, CAPFs and other Central paramilitary organisations. Indeed, the consequence of the Chairman’s recommendation is the automatic extension of the NFU to these branches of government as well. I strongly feel that this would be hugely detrimental to the efficiency of government and to improving the effectiveness and accountability of a system which is already facing severe challenges on this score, not least at the senior level. Since I agree with the principle of equality elaborated by the Chairman in paragraph 7.3.21, I cannot also support the continuity of the existing NFU for Group `A’ Central Services.

6. Based on this reasoning I join the dissent of my colleague Mr. Vivek Rae and recommend that NFU at the Group `A’ level be completely done away with. 7. Given the relatively lower grade of entry at the Group `B’, and `C’ levels and limited opportunities for substantive promotions, I would like to emphasise that non-functional career progression opportunities like MACP and other systems recommended in this report be continued and this dissent be read as applied solely to Group `A’ Central Services officers, All India Services officers and officer cadres in the Armed Forces, CAPFs and paramilitary organisations.”

*        *        *        *        *        *