The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a senior government doctor who voluntarily chooses not to opt for a Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) cannot claim pay parity or "stepping up of pay" against junior colleagues who receive the allowance.

It was observed that mere seniority does not guarantee identical pay when differences arise from the operation of statutory rules, special incentives, or voluntary options exercised by employees themselves.

The Court set aside an order by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, declaring that comparing doctors who retained their right to private practice with those who surrendered it for the allowance is fundamentally misconceived.

The Bench of Justice Anand Sharma
observed, "The contention of the respondent that juniors cannot draw higher pay than seniors also does not impress this Court in the peculiar facts of the present case. It is well settled that mere seniority does not guarantee identical pay where difference arises due to operation of statutory rules, grant of additional allowances, special incentives or exercise of options by employees themselves. The higher pay being drawn by juniors in the present case is not on account of arbitrary action of the State but due to a lawful benefit available only to those doctors who had opted for NPA."

Additional Government Counsel Archit Bohra appeared for the Petitioner-State , whereas
Additional Advocate General Mahi Yadav appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts of the Case

The private respondent was initially appointed as a Medical Officer under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963, following a selection process conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. In due course of service, he earned promotions to the posts of Junior Specialist, Senior Specialist, and ultimately Principal Specialist. Following the implementation of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2017, which were based on the recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission, a distinct mechanism was adopted for the fixation of revised pay.

Under these rules, the pay of doctors who had opted for Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) was fixed by adding Dearness Allowance on the NPA to their existing pay. Since the private respondent had voluntarily chosen not to opt for the Non-Practicing Allowance as on the crucial date of implementation, his revised pay fixation was carried out without the addition of Dearness Allowance on NPA. As a direct consequence of this distinct calculation, certain junior medical practitioners who had opted for the allowance began drawing a higher basic pay than the respondent, who was senior to them in the cadre.

Aggrieved by this perceived pay anomaly, the respondent instituted an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner-State either to provide a fresh option to the employee regarding the Non-Practicing Allowance or to step up his pay to bring it at par with his juniors. Challenging the legality and validity of this order, the State of Rajasthan preferred the instant writ petition before the High Court, which was clubbed with other connected matters involving similar questions of law and fact.

Contentions of the Petitioner-State

It was contended that the Tribunal completely misdirected itself in law while interpreting the relevant statutory provisions, particularly Rule 7(24) of the Rajasthan Service Rules and the relevant Finance Department notifications, which expressly provided for the addition of Dearness Allowance on NPA for fixing the revised pay of only those medical officers who were drawing NPA at the time of implementation.

It was submitted that the option to avail of the Non-Practicing Allowance was purely voluntary. The respondent had consciously and voluntarily declined the NPA in order to continue his private practice and derive financial benefits therefrom, whereas the junior doctors had completely surrendered their right to private practice.

The State argued that no pay anomaly could be said to have arisen in the eyes of law. The differential in pay fixation was a direct, legitimate, and logical consequence of the distinct options consciously exercised by individual doctors, placing them in two separate and distinct classes.

It was argued that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by virtually rewriting the statutory rules and directing the State to grant a fresh option, especially when the validity of the underlying statutory notification was never challenged by the respondent.

Contentions of the Respondents

The Respondent supported the impugned order of the Tribunal, arguing that the Non-Practicing Allowance was merely an allowance in character and could not be legally merged with or treated as part of the basic pay for the purposes of revised pay fixation.

It was contended that a senior officer cannot be permitted to draw a lesser pay than a junior officer within the same cadre. Relying upon Rule 11(7) of the Rules of 2017 and various settled judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, they argued that the principle of "stepping up of pay" must be applied to remove the anomaly and restore parity.

The respondents maintained that the directions issued by the Tribunal to either grant a fresh option or step up the pay were just, equitable, and necessary to prevent an ongoing financial injustice where seniors were being subordinated in pay by their juniors.

Observations of the Court

The High Court observed that a conjoint reading of the relevant rules and instructions governing the grant of Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) made it manifestly clear that the allowance was neither automatic nor an inherent consequence of merely holding a specified post. The Court noted that entitlement to receive NPA was conditional, wholly dependent upon the concerned Medical Officer exercising the prescribed option within the stipulated period and furnishing a mandatory declaration confirming that private practice was not undertaken. It was observed that unless these procedural and substantive conditions were met, no enforceable right to claim NPA accrued in favor of the employee.

The Court held that there was no dispute regarding the legal position that NPA was optional in the State service, creating two distinct classes of doctors founded upon a conscious and voluntary exercise of choice. One class of doctors voluntarily relinquished their right to private practice in lieu of NPA, while the other class declined the allowance to continue private medical practice and derive separate monetary gains therefrom. The Court observed that the entire foundation of the respondents' claim—demanding equal treatment despite retaining private practice rights—was fundamentally misconceived.

The Court found that Clause 11(B)(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2017, explicitly carved out a separate and distinct formula for the revision of pay specifically for doctors in receipt of NPA, by adding a component equivalent to the Dearness Allowance on the pre-revised NPA. Conversely, Clause 11(A) prescribed the normal method of pay revision for employees not drawing the allowance. The Court observed that this differentiation was neither artificial nor arbitrary, but was founded upon an intelligible differentia having a direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved—namely, rewarding those who surrendered private practice.

The Court ruled that since the statutory rules themselves provided different methodologies for pay fixation based on the admissibility of NPA, the two categories of doctors could not be treated as similarly situated. Consequently, the Court observed that a Medical Officer who did not opt for NPA could not claim parity with an officer whose pay was fixed under the special formula. Therefore, the Court held that the principle of "stepping up of pay" under Rule 11(7) of the Rules of 2017 had no application, as that provision applied only to clear pay anomalies arising between identically situated employees in the same cadre under identical conditions.

Relying upon Rule 7(24) of the Rajasthan Service Rules and parimateria judicial precedents from the Gujarat High Court, the Court observed that "pay" includes such emoluments as may be specially classed as pay by the Governor. Since the revised pay fixation notification itself treated the allowance as a relevant component for fixation purposes, the Court held that the Tribunal’s finding that NPA could not be merged with pay was legally unsustainable.

The Court observed that the Tribunal had committed a manifest illegality by virtually ignoring the plain and unambiguous language of the statutory notification. The Court noted that in the absence of any challenge to the validity of the statutory notification itself, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to alter the scheme framed by the rule-making authority or to direct the State to reopen and grant fresh options. The Court severely criticized this direction, stating that it amounted to impermissible judicial legislation and traveled far beyond the permissible limits of judicial review.

It said, "The Tribunal also committed manifest illegality in directing the State to grant fresh option regarding NPA. Admittedly, the respondent never challenged the validity of the Notification dated 30.10.2017. In absence of any challenge to the statutory rules, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to direct reopening of options or to alter the scheme framed by the rule making authority. Such direction clearly amounts to judicial legislation and travels far beyond the permissible limits of interference by the Tribunal."

The Court observed that the general circulars relied upon by the respondents could not override the specific, mandatory mechanism prescribed under the statutory notification. Furthermore, the judicial precedents cited by the respondents were found to be completely distinguishable on facts and applicable rules.

"The Court also finds substance in the contention raised by the petitioners that doctors declining NPA continue to enjoy the benefit of private practice and corresponding monetary gain therefrom. Therefore, comparison solely on the basis of salary drawn from Government service would be wholly artificial and incomplete. A doctor, who consciously elects to continue private practice, cannot thereafter seek the financial advantages attached to surrender of such practice", it held.

The Court concluded that the Tribunal, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, was bound to examine the legality of the pay fixation strictly through the prism of applicable statutory provisions, rather than erroneously proceeding on misplaced notions of equity and sympathy.

Cause Title: State Of Rajasthan v. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma and orthers [Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:21986]

Appearances:

Petitioners: Additional Government Counsel Archit Bohra, Advocate Yashwant Singh, Advocate Rahul Verma, Advocate Vikas Kabra, Advocate Ashok Bansal, Advocate Tanveer Ahamad, Advocate Amir Aziz.

Justice Anand SharmaRajasthan High Court

Aastha Kaushik