In recent months, the debate over Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) has re-emerged as one of the most contentious issues affecting India’s military community. Veterans’ organisations had even announced plans for a mass mobilisation in Delhi in July 2025 to press their case on NFU, One Rank One Pension (OROP), and service anomalies.
Whether or not such calls translated into a demonstration, the very fact that ex-servicemen felt the need to rally speaks volumes. The NFU has become more than a technical matter of pay it is now the most visible symbol of how the Armed Forces are being downgraded in terms of status, dignity, and recognition.
What is NFU and Why Soldiers Care
NFU was introduced after the Sixth Central Pay Commission to address creer stagnation in the civil services. Under this scheme, officers in most Group A services are automatically upgraded in pay after a set number of years, linked to the progression of their IAS batchmates. The intention was to reduce frustration where promotions are limited by vacancies.
Yet, while the scheme was extended to 53 civilian services and later to the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), the Armed Forces despite having the steepest pyramidal structure were excluded. The irony could not be sharper: Armed Forces officers, with the steepest pyramidal structure and the highest attrition, are denied a benefit that has been extended even to civilian cadres enjoying predictable and assured career paths.
The Seventh Central Pay Commission itself flagged this anomaly, observing that denial of NFU “undermined status and morale” of the military. Parliamentary Standing Committees have echoed the concern, warning of long-term risks to cohesion. Still, successive governments have resisted correction.
Legal Battles That Never End
The NFU issue has been litigated repeatedly since 2008. The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and the Delhi High Court have both, at different points, recognised the inequity. In fact, the Delhi High Court went so far as to observe that denying NFU to uniformed services, while granting it to CAPFs, was “untenable.”
Despite this, the government’s approach has been to contest every ruling. By 2025, more than 3,000 service-related appeals involving pay and pension were pending from the Ministry of Defence before the Supreme Court. In July 2025, the Court itself criticised the practice of “dragging armed forces personnel into unnecessary litigation,” and urged policy-level resolution rather than attritional 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, addressed broader questions of post-service benefits, illustrating the deep intertwining of NFU with veterans’ long-term welfare. Yet, outcomes remain mired in delay, technical dismissals, or appeals.
Legal observers have documented the anomaly, and experts have recalled that in 2019, the Supreme Court upheld NFU for CAPFs, explicitly rejecting the government’s claim that command structures would be harmed. If this logic held for paramilitary organisations with strict hierarchies, why not for the Armed Forces? That question remains unanswered in policy.
The Cost of Resistance
The government’s resistance to NFU parity is costly not only in terms of morale but also in terms of money. Litigation itself incurs crores each year in fees to lawyers and government counsels. A senior former judge recently noted that more has been spent fighting soldiers in court than would have been required to resolve many anomalies.
Meanwhile, salary progression data highlights widening gaps. Under projected scales for the forthcoming Eighth Pay Commission, civilian Group A officers with NFU will see pay in the ₹1.16 lakh to ₹5.8 lakh per month bracket, depending on grade. Armed Forces officers of equivalent seniority remain significantly behind. The impact is not limited to salary slips: pensions, status, and relative parity in official forums all cascade from this imbalance.
In governance terms, the paradox is striking. NFU was created to resolve stagnation. Instead, by excluding those who face the steepest pyramids, it has entrenched inequity.
Veterans’ Voices and Public Sentiment
Calls for collective mobilisation such as the July 2025 announcement for a Delhi protest highlight the depth of anger within the veteran community. Even when such demonstrations do not materialise at scale, the repeated need to threaten public protest highlights a breakdown in trust between the military community and the state.
Veterans across the three services repeatedly refer to NFU denial as “degradation.” Organisations such as the Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM) have mobilised petitions and campaigns drawing attention to the morale costs of persistent inequity.
Nor is this purely symbolic. Officers and jawans serving on the frontlines are acutely aware of the disparities. When CAPF counterparts deployed in similar environments enjoy benefits denied to soldiers, resentment is inevitable.
Operational and Strategic Implications
This is not simply about pay. Morale is a strategic asset. From Siachen to Ladakh, or during operations like Sindoor, the ability to endure and fight depends not only on equipment but also on the belief that one’s service is valued by the state.
Military psychologists the world over have underlined how dissatisfaction with career stagnation and status erosion contributes to stress, attrition, and even workforce disengagement. The stakes, therefore, are not financial but national security. A military that feels downgraded risks being less motivated at precisely the time India faces its gravest external challenges in decades.
The International Contrast
In peer democracies, the picture could not be more different. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Israel all maintain systems where the military enjoys either pay parity or, in many cases, preferential treatment compared to civilian cadres. The principle is simple: those who accept unlimited liability for the state deserve equity in return.
India’s situation is 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 internationally.
A Pattern of Downgrading
NFU denial cannot be viewed in isolation. It sits alongside a series of decisions and policies that collectively erode the dignity of military service:
* The 2023 Entitlement Rules redefined disability pensions, sparking widespread discontent.
* Repeated litigation over OROP arrears.
* The steady rise of CAPFs in status and entitlements compared to the Armed Forces.
Each step may be explained in bureaucratic or fiscal terms, but the cumulative effect is unmistakable: the slow downgrading of India’s military.
Time for Resolution
To address the NFU anomaly, the government should form 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 in the forces. Proactive policy action, rather than continued litigation, is essential for lasting resolution.
India’s soldiers are not asking for privilege, only parity. A nation that demands sacrifice in war must be prepared to honour dignity in peace. Denying NFU may appear to save money or preserve bureaucratic privilege in the short term, but in the long run, it corrodes morale, justice, and national security.
The government should act decisively to correct 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.
(Aritra Banerjee is a Defence, Foreign Affairs & Aerospace journalist. He has been covering ex-servicemen’s welfare, disability, and veterans’ issues since the beginning of his media career. He is also co-author of The Indian Navy @75: Reminiscing the Voyage.)
