Kerala High Court: In the present set of petitions, the petitioners, who were retired Central Industrial Security Force (‘CISF’) personnel, challenged an order passed by the Director General of CISF (‘DG of CISF’) wherein the CISF personnel were denied the benefits of liquor supply from the canteens set up for the retired Central Armed Police Forces (‘CAPF’) personnel.
A Single Judge Bench of N. Nagaresh, J., set aside the impugned order and held that the denial of the liquor supplied through canteens to the retired CISF personnel was grossly discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court directed the DG of CISF to share the data of retired CISF personnel for the online sale system so that the said benefits could be extended to them.
Background:
The petitioners were retired personnel of the CISF, one of the CAPFs, under the Ministry of Home Affairs (‘MHA’). The Union of India had a policy to provide men in uniform with the best facilities during service and after retirement, and the members of the Tri-services, serving or retired, could purchase provisions from Defence Canteens and Canteen Store Depots. The Central Government decided to extend similar benefits, except liquor, to CAPF personnel through the Central Police Force Canteen System (‘CPFCS’) to supply a wide range of consumer goods at low rates without compromising quality.
Subsequently, the Central Government introduced liquor facilities to all retired and serving personnel of CRPF, CISF, ITBP, SSB, BSF and Assam Rifles and directed canteens to obtain liquor licence from the State Government concerned. All retired personnel of CRPF, BSF, CISF, ITBP and SSB were designated as ‘Ex-Central Armed Police Personnel’ and the State Governments and Union Territories were directed to extend to them all facilities of retired servicemen of Defence Forces. The Government of Kerala also issued a gazette notification enlarging liquor facility to all CAPF units; retired CISF personnel were granted liquor cards after paying a canteen deposit and a Central Liquor Management System (‘CLMS’) portal was introduced. However, after the introduction of the CLMS, the CRPF stopped supplying liquor to CISF personnel and ruled that CISF and IB personnel would not be issued Indian Made Foreign Liquor.
The petitioners stated that the decision taken by the DG of CISF not to extend liquor facility to Ex-CISF personnel despite the clear provisions in the CLMS, was without any justification. Pursuant to an interim order dated 24-03-2023,in a petition filed in 2023 the Deputy Inspector General of CRPF resumed the sale of liquor to the retired CISF personnel but stopped it by 31-01-2024 stating that the old stock of liquor was exhausted.
The Court had disposed of this petition directing that a decision must be taken by the DG of CISF as expeditiously as possible based on which the petitioners’ request for access to the CLMS would be decided. By an order dated 28-06-2024, the DG of CISF stated that the grant of liquor facility to retired CISF personnel would not only be against the long standing policy of CISF, but also would lead to similar demands from the serving personnel, which if implemented would adversely impact the security of critical infrastructure guarded by the CISF.
The petitioners contended that the benefit of welfare measures extended by the MHA to the retired persons of the CAPFs could not be denied by the DG of CISF. Once a uniformed soldier from a CAPF retired from service, the Director Generals of the services had no power to curtail the benefits granted to them by the MHA.
The Deputy Inspector General and the Director General of CRPF submitted that the CRPF, ITBP, BSF and SSB opted to go with online sale system i.e., CLMS, by exchanging the data of their men, whereas CISF had opted out from it. Since CISF had opted out, the data of retired CISF personnel would not be available on the system server, and therefore, liquor could not be issued to them. Further, the DG of CISF stated that the CISF never had a policy to issue liquor to its personnel, whether serving or retired. The CISF was deployed for providing security to India’s most critical infrastructure like nuclear installation, space establishments, airports, seaports, power plants, refineries, etc. as well as for VIP security. The introduction of liquor in CISF might impact its duties. Therefore, he prayed for dismissing the writ petitions.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that when the liquor was supplied through the canteens to retired personnel of other CAPFs, the denial of the said benefits to the retired personnel of CISF was grossly discriminatory.
The Court opined that all the wings of CAPFs were discharging duties which could be described as sensitive in view of the national security requirements, and it could not be said that CISF personnel required a different yardstick in the matter of security and discipline. The denial of the benefit to the retired CISF personnel offended Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court further observed that the petitioners were retired CISF personnel and supply of liquor through canteens to retired CAPF personnel could not impact the discipline of the Force and that too, of CISF alone and the reason that similar demand would arise from other sectors could not be a reason to discriminate against the petitioners.
Consequently, the Court set aside the order of the DG of CISF denying the liquor quota, and declared that retired CISF personnel were entitled to purchase liquor through CLMS System from CRPF Liquor Canteen or any other Liquor Canteens of CAPFs. The Court directed the DG of CISF to share the data of retired CISF personnel as per CLMS requirements. Further, the Deputy Inspector General and the Director General of CRPF were directed to continue the sale of liquor to the retired CISF personnel through the CLMS System.
[CISF Ex-service Welfare Association v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 26101 of 2024, decided on 21-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: V. Jayapradeep, O.A. Nuriya, D.S. Lokanathan, Alan Priyadarshi Dev, Lilin Lal, T. Sanjay, Sanil Kumar G., Advocates.
For the Respondents: O.M. Shalina, Deputy Solicitor General of India, C. Dinesh (CGC), Achuth Krishnan R. (CGC).
Buy Constitution of India HERE
