Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Tribunal Orders Directing Pay Stepping-Up for Doctors Who Declined NPA
Doctors who voluntarily declined Non-Practising Allowance to retain private practice cannot claim pay parity with juniors who surrendered that practice, the Rajasthan High Court has ruled in a batch of 35 writ petitions.
The Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, has quashed a series of orders passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal directing the State Government either to grant fresh options regarding Non-Practising Allowance (NPA) or to step up the pay of senior government doctors to match that of their juniors. Justice Anand Sharma, sitting singly, delivered a common judgment on 26 May 2026 in a batch of 35 writ petitions, holding that the pay differential was a direct and lawful consequence of the option consciously exercised by individual doctors and did not constitute a pay anomaly warranting judicial correction. The judgment also dismissed five writ petitions filed directly by aggrieved doctors seeking the same relief.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The lead matter, State of Rajasthan & Others v. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8978/2022), arose from the implementation of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2017, which gave effect to the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission.
Under the pay revision, the pay of doctors who had opted for NPA as on 1 January 2016 was fixed by adding Dearness Allowance on NPA to their existing pay. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, who had not opted for NPA on that date, had his pay fixed without that addition. The result was that certain junior doctors who had opted for NPA came to draw higher pay than him.
Dr. Sharma challenged this before the Tribunal, arguing that NPA is merely an allowance and cannot be merged with basic pay, and that he was entitled either to a notional addition of NPA for fixation purposes or to stepping up of his pay at par with the higher-paid juniors. The Tribunal allowed his appeal by order dated 16 August 2021, directing the State either to provide a fresh option regarding NPA or to grant pay parity. The State challenged that order before the High Court. Thirty other writ petitions by the State arose from similar Tribunal orders in favour of other doctors, and five further petitions were filed directly by doctors seeking the same relief.
The Legal Questions
Three questions ran through the batch. First, whether the pay fixation mechanism under Clause 11(B)(1) of the Notification dated 30 October 2017 — which added Dearness Allowance on NPA to the pay of doctors drawing NPA as on 1 January 2016 — was legally valid. Second, whether a doctor who voluntarily declined NPA could invoke Rule 11(7) of the Rules of 2017 to claim stepping up of pay on the ground of anomaly. Third, whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to direct the State to reopen the option exercise in the absence of any challenge to the validity of the notification.
The State argued that Rule 7(24) of the Rajasthan Service Rules specifically includes within the ambit of “pay” such emoluments as may be specially classed as pay by the Governor, and that Clause 11(B)(1) of the Notification dated 30 October 2017 expressly provided for the addition of Dearness Allowance on NPA. The doctors' counsel relied on subsequent circulars dated 28 May 2021 and 6 July 2021 dealing with pay anomalies, and on judgments in Gurcharan Singh Grewal & Another and Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Haryana & Others v. Ram Sarup Ganda & Others.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Sharma accepted the State's position in full. The court held that the Notification dated 30 October 2017 was a statutory instrument issued under the Rules of 2017 and that Clause 11(B)(1) thereof expressly governed pay fixation for doctors drawing NPA. The differential in pay fixation was not an anomaly but a direct consequence of the option consciously exercised by individual doctors.
On the question of private practice, the court found substance in the State's contention that doctors who declined NPA continued to enjoy the benefit of private practice and the corresponding monetary gain from it. A comparison based solely on salary drawn from Government service was, in the court's view, “wholly artificial and incomplete.” A doctor who consciously elects to continue private practice cannot thereafter seek the financial advantages attached to surrender of that practice.
The court held that Rule 11(7) of the Rules of 2017 — the stepping-up provision — applies only where an anomaly arises amongst employees similarly situated in the same cadre under identical conditions. It cannot be invoked where the difference in pay is a direct consequence of different options carrying different service benefits and restrictions. Doctors who opted for NPA surrendered private practice; those who did not, retained it. The two groups were not similarly situated.
On the Tribunal's direction to reopen the option exercise, the court was categorical. The respondent doctors had never challenged the validity of the Notification dated 30 October 2017. In the absence of any such challenge, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to direct reopening of options or to alter the scheme framed by the rule-making authority. The court described this as “judicial legislation” that travelled far beyond the permissible limits of Tribunal interference.
The court also rejected reliance on the circulars dated 28 May 2021 and 6 July 2021, holding that those circulars dealt with general pay anomaly situations and could not override the specific statutory mechanism governing pay fixation for doctors drawing NPA.
The judgments in Gurcharan Singh Grewal and Ram Sarup Ganda were distinguished on the ground that they arose from altogether different facts and prevailing rules.
The court also reproduced an observation from the Supreme Court cautioning that Tribunals “quite often” interfere with pay scales without proper reasons and without being conscious that fixation of pay is the function of the Government acting on Pay Commission recommendations. The Supreme Court had directed that matters relating to pay scales should be heard by a bench comprising at least one Judicial Member. The Rajasthan High Court noted this in the context of the Tribunal having proceeded on “notions of equity and sympathy while ignoring the explicit mandate of the Rules.”
Outcome
Justice Sharma allowed all 30 writ petitions filed by the State Government. The order dated 16 August 2021 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, was quashed and set aside, and the appeals preferred by the respondent doctors before the Tribunal were rejected.
The five writ petitions filed directly by aggrieved doctors — S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 1846/2026, 12/2023, 38/2023, 244/2023 and 18374/2024 — were dismissed. All pending applications were disposed of.