The Rajasthan High Court has partly allowed the petition against the order whereby it was held that AIIMS, Jodhpur could not deduct the pension from the pay of the re-employed doctors with retrospective effect by applying the formula of ‘Pay minus Pension’. The High Court held that the ‘Pay minus Pension’ principle is an outcome of the statutory provisions and cannot be obliviated merely on the ground that such conditions were not mentioned in the advertisement or the appointment orders.

The writ petitions were preferred against the separate orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench (Tribunal) by certain doctors. AIIMS, Jodhpur had also preferred some of the petitions.

The Division Bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali said, “This Court is also of the clear opinion that the pay fixations have to be done as per the Orders of 1986 which are governing the field for the Union Government employees, upon their reemployment, and thus, any action contrary thereto, would not be permissible. The ‘Pay minus Pension’ principle is an outcome of the statutory provisions, particularly the Orders of 1986, and Regulation 33 of the Regulations of 1999, and thus cannot be obliviated merely on the ground that such conditions were not mentioned in the advertisement or the appointment orders.”

Advocate Muktesh Maheshwari represented the Petitioner while Senior Advocate Sanjeev Johari represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The litigation was related to certain doctors, who, while receiving a pension from the Union of India, were taken under the employment of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur (AIIMS, Jodhpur). The grievance of the said doctors was that on the strength of the provisions of All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Regulations, 1999 , Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986 as well as the Circulars of the Ministry of Health, Government of India and AIIMS, Jodhpur, they were being considered and treated as reemployed persons.

The Central Administrative Tribunal had held firstly, that since the Doctors are getting pension and got employment in the AIIMS, Jodhpur, they certainly fall in the category of ‘Re-employed Persons’, as per Regulation 33 of the Regulations of 1999 and in the absence of any condition in the appointment order. Secondly, it was held that it was not legally permissible for AIIMS, Jodhpur to deduct the pension from the pay of the Doctors with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of their appointment to the AIIMS, Jodhpur, by applying the formula of ‘Pay minus Pension’, being violative of the principles of natural justice. The Doctors were aggrieved by the first part of the impugned orders, whereas AIIMS, Jodhpur was assailing the second part of the verdict of the Tribunal.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that presently, the Pay fixation of the government employees who are appointed in Central Civil Services is done in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2016. However, an exception is carved out on the applicability of the said Rules, under Rule 2 (vii), on re-employed pensioners in Government Services. In case of re-employed pensioners, including that of defense forces personnel/Officers, the pay fixation is carried out in accordance with Order of 1986 read with Office Memorandum dated May 1, 2017, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension Department of Personnel & Training, which requires the application of “Pay minus Pension” formula in case of re-employed pensioners.

Referring to the Rules, the Bench noted that in the absence of any clear definition of the term ‘reemployment’, a purposive interpretation is required to be done in this regard. The Bench observed that the doctors herein are professionals who, after they retired from their government services, in pursuance of the respective notifications of Direct recruitment on the various faculty posts (Group ‘A’) in various Departments, were given appointment in the AIIMS, Jodhpur. The appointment was done by issuing office orders, where the pay matrix and rules applicable qua their service were mentioned along with other details.

The Court made it clear that the services of the doctors are subject to the Act of 1956, and Regulations of 1999, and the service conditions of the doctors appointed are governed by the Central Civil Service Rules as applicable to the Central Government employees. “This Court further observes that the provision of Regulation 33 of the Regulations of 1999, indicates that if a retired person is employed in the AIIMS, he/she is to be be treated as a reemployed person”, it said while also adding, “Thus, there is no ambiguity in the findings of the learned Tribunal that Regulation 33 of the Regulations of 1999 is governing the field of the Doctors herein, and thus, they have been rightly declared as “re-employed” persons.”

On the issue of ‘Pay minus Pension’, the Bench noticed that the Orders of 1986 and ‘Pay minus Pension’ formula became a foregone conclusion once it was determined that the doctors were re-employed persons, and therefore, arriving at the second conclusion that since the conditions which were neither there in the advertisement nor in the appointment order would not apply in the case of the doctors herein, was not correct. This was because the Rules which applied to the service, including consolidated and conjoint reading of the Act of 1956, the Regulations of 1999 and Orders of 1986 clearly demarcated that once the employees are re-employed, the ‘Pay minus Pension’ formula should be applicable to them.

The Bench said, “The statutory provisions which are governing the field qua the re-employed persons cannot be excluded only because there has been an omission on the part of the AIIMS, Jodhpur to clarify the same at the time of advertisement or in the appointment order. The statutes have to prevail unless found to be contrary to law. It is true that it was a direct recruitment, but at the same time, Regulation 33 of the Regulations of 1999 clearly prescribed that such re-employment in common parlance of the Doctors was under the same employer i.e. Union of India.”

The Bench thus held that the doctors herein were re-employed and they shall be governed by the applicable provisions of law with respect to their pay fixation and the “pay minus pension” formula vis-a-vis the doctors is to be followed in its true spirit and essence, prospectively, from the date of this judgment, “...accordingly, the recovery of amount by application of “pay minus pension” shall not be made with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of their appointment in AIIMS, Jodhpur”, the Bench concluded.

Cause Title: All India Institute Of Medical Science (AIIMS), Jodhpur v. Dr. Mahendra Kumar Garg (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:15512-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Muktesh Maheshwari

Respondent: Senior Advocate Sanjeev Johari, Advocates Lalit Parihar, Shubhankar Johari

Click here to read/download Order


Rajasthan High CourtJustice Pushpendra Singh BhatiJustice Chandra Prakash Shrimali

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.