Doctors who declined NPA can’t claim parity with juniors drawing it: Rajasthan High Court

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that medical officers who declined the option of Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) cannot claim stepping up of their pay at par with junior doctors who opted for NPA and consequently drew a higher revised pay under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2017.

Justice Anand Sharma of the Jaipur Bench held that the Rules of 2017 themselves prescribe two distinct formulae for pay fixation — one for medical officers who were drawing NPA as on 01.01.2016 and another for those who were not — and that the resultant pay differential flowed from the conscious option exercised by individual doctors, not from any arbitrary State action.

Rejecting the doctors’ claim of parity, the Court observed:

“…a Medical Officer, who did not opt for or was not drawing NPA on the relevant date, cannot claim parity with a Medical Officer, who was actually receiving NPA and whose pay fixation was governed by the special formula prescribed under Rule 11(B)(1) of the Rules of 2017. Therefore, there exists no similarity or equivalence between the employees governed by Rule 11(A) of the Rules of 2017 and those governed by Rule 11(B) of the Rules of 2017 for the purpose of revision and fixation of pay. Hence, under these circumstances, stepping up of pay cannot be claimed by those, who are covered by Rule 11(A) of the Rules of 2017, qua those, whose pay fixation has been made by virtue of Rule 11(B) of the Rules of 2017, and hence, Rule 11(7) of the Rules of 2017 shall have no application in this matter.”

The judgment was rendered in a batch of thirty-five connected writ petitions — thirty preferred by the State Government assailing orders of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal that had allowed the doctors’ appeals, and five filed directly by individual medical officers seeking the same relief. For convenience, the Court adopted the pleadings in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8978/2022 (State of Rajasthan v Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma) as representative of the batch.

The respondent-doctor in the lead matter was initially appointed as a Medical Officer under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963 and subsequently promoted through Junior Specialist, Senior Specialist and Principal Specialist. Upon implementation of the Rules of 2017, the pay of doctors who had opted for NPA was fixed by adding Dearness Allowance on NPA to their existing pay under Clause 11(B)(1) of the Notification dated 30.10.2017. The respondent, having declined NPA as on 01.01.2016, had his pay fixed without that addition. Consequently, several junior doctors who had opted for NPA came to draw higher pay than him.

Aggrieved, the respondent moved the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal contending that NPA was merely an allowance and could not be merged with basic pay. The Tribunal, by order dated 16.08.2021, accepted the contention and directed the State either to grant a fresh option regarding NPA or to step up the respondent’s pay at par with his juniors.

Assailing that order, Additional Government Counsel Archit Bohra, appearing for the State, argued that Rule 7(24) of the Rajasthan Service Rules read with Clause 11(B)(1) of the Notification dated 30.10.2017 expressly provided for addition of Dearness Allowance on NPA while fixing the revised pay of medical officers drawing NPA as on 01.01.2016. He submitted that the respondent had voluntarily declined NPA in order to continue private practice and could not thereafter seek parity with doctors who had surrendered private practice and opted for NPA. He further contended that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction in virtually rewriting the statutory rules and directing a fresh option, although the respondent had never challenged the validity of the Notification.

Per contra, Advocates Ashok Bansal and Tanveer Ahmad, appearing for the respondent-doctors, supported the order of the Tribunal and contended that NPA was an allowance and could not form part of basic pay for the purpose of pay fixation. They argued that Rule 11(7) of the Rules of 2017 protects seniors from drawing lesser pay than juniors and that the Tribunal had rightly granted relief.

The Court rejected the doctors’ contentions, holding that Clause 11(B)(1) of the Rules of 2017 in clear and unambiguous terms creates a distinct formula for revision of pay in the case of medical officers drawing NPA, while Clause 11(A) prescribes the normal method for employees not drawing it. The Rules themselves therefore recognise two separate classes for pay fixation. Justice Anand Sharma observed that the distinction was “neither artificial, nor arbitrary, but is founded upon an intelligible differentia having a direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved, namely, grant of a higher pay fixation benefit to those Medical Officers, who had opted for and were actually drawing NPA.”

The Court further found that the Tribunal had erred in treating the resultant differential as a “pay anomaly”, observing that an anomaly arises only where two identically situated employees are treated differently without rational basis. Since doctors who opted for NPA had voluntarily surrendered private practice while those who declined NPA retained the right to private practice and corresponding monetary benefit, the two categories could not be treated as a single homogeneous class. The Court added that “comparison solely on the basis of salary drawn from Government service would be wholly artificial and incomplete.”

The Court made reference to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Calcutta Municipal Corporation v Sujit Baran Mukherjee, (1997) 11 SCC 463 and Union of India v P.V. Hariharan, (1997) 3 SCC 568, the latter restricting the scope of interference by Administrative Tribunals in fixation of pay. It also drew support from the Gujarat High Court decision in Mahesh Kumar P Kapadia v State of Gujarat, to hold that the inclusion of DA on NPA as a component for pay fixation, for the limited purpose of the revised pay scheme, was not legally impermissible.

The Tribunal was also found to have travelled beyond its jurisdiction by directing the State to grant a fresh option regarding NPA. Since the respondent had never challenged the Notification dated 30.10.2017, the Tribunal could not have reopened the option scheme. Such direction, the Court held, amounted to judicial legislation and travelled far beyond the permissible limits of interference.

Holding that the Tribunal’s order suffered from “patent illegality, misinterpretation of the statutory provisions and jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”, the Court allowed the thirty writ petitions filed by the State, quashed the Tribunal’s order dated 16.08.2021 and rejected the underlying Tribunal appeals. The five writ petitions filed by individual doctors seeking the same relief were dismissed.

Title: State of Rajasthan v Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma and connected matters

Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8978/2022 (with 34 connected petitions)

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:21986]

Counsel for petitioners: Mr. Archit Bohra, Additional Government Counsel, with Mr. Yashwant Singh, Mr. Rahul Verma, Mr. Vikas Kabra, Mr. Ashok Bansal, Mr. Tanveer Ahamad and Mr. Amir Aziz

Counsel for respondents: Mr. Ashok Bansal and Mr. Vikas Kabra; Ms. Chelsi Agarwal on behalf of Mr. Mahi Yadav, Additional Advocate General