Ex-paramilitary alliance meets 8th pay commission chair, places 14-point memorandum

An eight-member delegation representing the Ex-Para-Military Forces Welfare Association met with 8th Central Pay Commission chairperson Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, delivering a 14-point memorandum advocating for numerous benefits for Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) personnel, the alliance announced on Monday. This marked the first occasion the 8th Pay Commission had invited such a delegation to present their suggestions and demands.

The meeting is significant amid the ex-paramilitary forces personnel's ongoing petition before the Supreme Court challenging the recently enacted Central Armed Police Force (General Administration) Act, 2026. The alliance's statement highlighted key demands presented to the commission, including the restoration of the Old Pension Scheme, organisation of Group ‘A’ Service status, One Rank One Pension (OROP), timely promotions, CGHS dispensaries expansion, pension slab revision, establishment of state-level paramilitary welfare boards, creation of a Paramilitary Flag Day Fund, and declaration of a common CAPF Day.

These issues align with the legal battles CAPF officers waged for a decade, which culminated in a favorable Supreme Court judgment in 2025.

Alliance representatives, including president HR Singh, a retired Additional Director General (cadre officer), emphasized the need for the commission to prioritize the interests of serving and retired CAPF personnel, citing their challenging service conditions, high operational risks, demanding duties, social security needs, and post-retirement requirements.

The alliance contends that the recently introduced CAPF Act, aimed at circumventing the Supreme Court's order, has been ineffective due to its non-implementation by the Home Ministry.

The government defended the bill, asserting its necessity to streamline regulatory provisions for Central Armed Police Forces into a unified law, thereby averting regulatory fragmentation, service-related litigation, and functional/administrative complications. The government argued that a comprehensive law is essential to ensure legislative clarity, preserve the distinct operational and functional requirements of CAPFs, and harmonize judicial directives with administrative and federal obligations.