Supreme Court Upholds NFU to Level 9 for Junior Engineers in BRO: Pay Parity Victory After Years of Stagnation

In a landmark decision delivered on 1 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the Union of India’s appeal and directed the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) to grant Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to Level 9 (Grade Pay RS. 5,400) to eligible Junior Engineers. The ruling brings much-needed relief to hundreds of Junior Engineers who have completed four years in Level 8 but were denied the benefit on technical grounds.

The dispute centred on Paragraph 7.4.13(iv)(b) of the Seventh Central Pay Commission Report. The Commission had recommended that 80% of employees in Level 8 would become eligible for non-functional upgrade to Level 9 after completing four years of service in Level 8, on a seniority-cum-suitability basis. This provision was aimed at addressing stagnation in subordinate engineering cadres.

Junior Engineers in BRO, who were placed in Pay Band-2 with Grade Pay Rs.4,200 under the Sixth CPC and later reached Level 8 (Grade Pay ₹4,800) through the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme after 20 years of service, claimed this exact benefit. However, the BRO rejected their representations vide letter dated 19 February 2021, stating that NFU to Grade Pay Rs.5,400 was available only to Senior Private Secretaries (SPS) and not to Assistant Engineers/Junior Engineers.

The affected engineers approached the Delhi High Court through Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5518 of 2021. They argued that denying NFU while granting the same benefit to Senior Private Secretaries and Assistant Accounts Officers was discriminatory and contrary to the plain language of the 7th CPC recommendation. The High Court accepted their plea on 14 March 2023, holding that the only condition required for NFU is completion of four years in Level 8, irrespective of whether the employee reached that level through direct recruitment or MACP. The court also noted that the Ministry of Finance’s original 2008 Resolution had extended the benefit more broadly, but the BRO had arbitrarily restricted it.

The Union of India challenged the High Court order before the Supreme Court. It contended that the recommendation applied only to Group ‘B’ officers whose entry-level Grade Pay in the Sixth CPC was ₹4,800 and that Junior Engineers, having entered at Rs. 4,200, were not covered. The government also relied on other paragraphs of the 7th CPC Report dealing with different cadres.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment authored by Justice S.V.N. Bhatti (with Justice Pankaj Mithal concurring), rejected the Union’s narrow interpretation. The bench observed that imposing an “entry-level Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800” condition was not mentioned in Para 7.4.13(iv)(b) and amounted to adding a new restriction not envisaged by the Pay Commission. The Court emphasised that once an employee reaches Level 8 and completes four years of regular service, the NFU to Level 9 becomes available on seniority-cum-suitability basis.

The bench also took note of earlier judgments, including the Madras High Court decision in M. Subramaniam v. Union of India (confirmed by the Supreme Court) and similar rulings involving Sushil Kumar and Gajendra Singh, which had consistently held that NFU cannot be denied merely because the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800 was attained through MACP rather than direct entry or promotion.

The Supreme Court categorically held that the denial of NFU to Junior Engineers who had completed the required four years in Level 8 was not based on valid reasons. Consequently, the Civil Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The BRO has now been directed to implement the High Court order and grant the NFU benefit.

This judgment is expected to have far-reaching implications for thousands of Junior Engineers across BRO and similar engineering cadres in the Central Government, reinforcing the principle that pay upgradation benefits recommended by the Pay Commission cannot be denied through restrictive administrative interpretations.

Case Details: Union of India & Others Versus Sunil Kumar Rai & Others
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
Coram: S.V.N. Bhatti, J. (Author)

Click HERE for full Judgment