Exclusion from Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) exacerbates pay disparities between military and civilian personnel, undermining the morale and dignity of India’s Armed Forces veterans.
In recent months, the debate surrounding Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) has resurfaced as a contentious issue within India’s military community. Veterans’ organizations have even announced plans for a mass mobilization in Delhi in July 2025 to advocate for NFU, One Rank One Pension (OROP), and address service anomalies.
Regardless of whether these calls for demonstration materialize, the very fact that ex-servicemen feel compelled to rally underscores the gravity of the situation. NFU has evolved into a prominent symbol of the perceived downgrading of the Armed Forces in terms of status, dignity, and recognition.
Understanding NFU and Its Importance to Soldiers
NFU was introduced following the Sixth Central Pay Commission to tackle career stagnation in civil services. Under this scheme, officers in most Group A services receive automatic pay upgrades after a specified number of years, aligned with the progression of their Indian Administrative Service (IAS) batchmates. The aim was to alleviate frustration stemming from limited promotions due to vacancy constraints.
However, despite the scheme being extended to 53 civilian services and later to the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), the Armed Forces—characterized by the steepest pyramidal structure—were excluded. The irony is stark: Armed Forces officers, who face the highest attrition rates, are denied a benefit granted to civilian counterparts who enjoy more predictable career paths.
The Seventh Central Pay Commission highlighted this anomaly, noting that the denial of NFU “undermined status and morale” within the military. Parliamentary Standing Committees have echoed these concerns, warning of potential long-term risks to cohesion within the Armed Forces. Yet, successive governments have resisted rectifying this issue.
Ongoing Legal Battles
The NFU matter has been litigated repeatedly since 2008. Both the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and the Delhi High Court have recognized the inequity at different times. The Delhi High Court even described the denial of NFU to uniformed services, while granting it to CAPFs, as “untenable.”
Despite these rulings, the government’s approach has been to contest every decision. As of 2025, over 3,000 service-related appeals concerning pay and pension were pending from the Ministry of Defence before the Supreme Court. In July 2025, the Court criticized the practice of “dragging armed forces personnel into unnecessary litigation,” urging a policy-level resolution instead of protracted courtroom battles.
Recent AFT petitions, such as OA 1893/2023 and OA 724/2025, have sought reconsideration of NFU parity. Others, like OA 2894/2023, have raised broader questions regarding post-service benefits, highlighting the deep connection between NFU and veterans’ long-term welfare. Unfortunately, outcomes remain mired in delays, technical dismissals, or appeals.
Legal experts have documented this anomaly, recalling that in 2019, the Supreme Court upheld NFU for CAPFs, explicitly rejecting the government’s argument that command structures would be compromised. If this rationale applies to paramilitary organizations with strict hierarchies, why does it not extend to the Armed Forces? This question remains unanswered in policy discussions.
The Costs of Resistance
The government’s resistance to NFU parity incurs significant costs, both in terms of morale and financial resources. Litigation alone costs crores each year in legal fees. A senior former judge recently remarked that more has been spent on fighting soldiers in court than would have been necessary to resolve many of these anomalies.
Salary progression data reveals widening gaps. Under projected scales for the forthcoming Eighth Pay Commission, civilian Group A officers with NFU are expected to earn between ₹1.16 lakh and ₹5.8 lakh per month, depending on their grade. In contrast, Armed Forces officers of equivalent seniority remain significantly behind. This disparity affects not only salaries but also pensions, status, and relative parity in official forums.
The governance implications are striking. NFU was intended to alleviate stagnation; instead, by excluding those facing the steepest pyramids, it has entrenched inequity.
Veterans’ Voices and Public Sentiment
Calls for collective mobilization, such as the planned July 2025 protest in Delhi, underscore the deep-seated anger within the veteran community. Even if such demonstrations do not occur on a large scale, the repeated threats of public protest highlight a breakdown in trust between the military community and the state.
Veterans from all three services frequently refer to the denial of NFU as “degradation.” Organizations like the Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM) have initiated petitions and campaigns to draw attention to the morale costs associated with persistent inequity.
This issue is not merely symbolic. Officers and jawans serving on the frontlines are acutely aware of the disparities. When their CAPF counterparts deployed in similar environments enjoy benefits denied to soldiers, resentment is inevitable.
Operational and Strategic Implications
This situation extends beyond financial concerns. Morale is a strategic asset. From Siachen to Ladakh, or during operations like Sindoor, the ability to endure and fight relies not only on equipment but also on the belief that one’s service is valued by the state.
Military psychologists worldwide emphasize that dissatisfaction stemming from career stagnation and status erosion contributes to stress, attrition, and workforce disengagement. The stakes are not merely financial; they encompass national security. A military that feels undervalued risks becoming less motivated at a time when India faces significant external challenges.
International Comparisons
In contrast, peer democracies such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Israel maintain systems where the military enjoys either pay parity or, in many cases, preferential treatment compared to civilian personnel. The principle is straightforward: those who accept unlimited liability for the state deserve equity in return.
India’s situation stands as an outlier. By privileging its bureaucracy while resisting even parity for its Armed Forces, it has created a unique imbalance that is difficult to justify on an international scale.
A Pattern of Downgrading
The denial of NFU cannot be viewed in isolation. It is part of a broader pattern of decisions and policies that collectively erode the dignity of military service. Recent changes, such as the 2023 Entitlement Rules redefining disability pensions, ongoing litigation over OROP arrears, and the rising status of CAPFs compared to the Armed Forces, contribute to this trend.
Time for Resolution
To address the NFU anomaly, the government should establish a high-level committee with armed forces representation to review and resolve disparities. Timely implementation of NFU parity, as recommended by pay commissions and supported by legal observations, can restore morale and integrity within the forces. Proactive policy action, rather than continued litigation, is essential for a lasting resolution.
India’s soldiers are not seeking privilege, only parity. A nation that demands sacrifice in war must be prepared to honor dignity in peace. Denying NFU may seem to save money or preserve bureaucratic privilege in the short term, but in the long run, it undermines morale, justice, and national security.
The government must act decisively to rectify the NFU imbalance by establishing policy parity between the Armed Forces and other Group A services. Creating a transparent, equitable framework for pay progression would directly support morale and operational effectiveness. Early resolution will demonstrate respect for service and strengthen the foundation of the Republic.
Source: Original article
