Senior Medical Officers Who Opt To Continue Private Practice Cannot Claim Pay Parity With Juniors Drawing Non-Practicing Allowance: Rajasthan High Court

"A doctor, who consciously elects to continue private practice, cannot thereafter seek the financial advantages attached to surrender of such practice," Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling, held that senior medical officers who voluntarily declined the Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) to continue their private medical practice cannot claim pay parity or the "stepping up" of pay with their juniors who opted for the allowance.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that doctors who opt for NPA and surrender their right to private practice form a distinct class from those who choose to continue private practice, and the two cannot be treated as a homogeneous group for pay fixation.

The court was dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed by the State of Rajasthan challenging orders passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had previously allowed appeals by several medical practitioners, directing the State to either provide them with a fresh option to opt for NPA or grant them pay parity with their juniors whose salaries were fixed at a higher level due to the inclusion of NPA under the Rajasthan Civil Service (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2017.

The dispute arose following the implementation of the 7th Pay Commission recommendations via the Rules of 2017. Under these rules, doctors who opted for NPA had their pay fixed using a formula that added Dearness Allowance on the NPA to their existing pay. The respondent-doctors, who had declined NPA to continue private practice, found themselves drawing lower salaries than their juniors who had opted for the allowance. Aggrieved by this "pay anomaly," the senior doctors successfully approached the Tribunal, leading the State to move the High Court.

The primary question before the court was whether medical officers who voluntarily declined NPA constitute a homogeneous class with those who opted for it for the purpose of pay fixation. The court was also called upon to determine if the resulting difference in pay qualifies as a "pay anomaly" warranting the "stepping up" of pay under Rule 11(7) of the Rules of 2017. Furthermore, the court examined whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the State to reopen the option for NPA.

Court Explains Distinction Between NPA And Normal Pay Fixation

The Court noted that the grant of NPA is neither automatic nor an inherent consequence of holding a medical post. It emphasized that entitlement to NPA is conditional and dependent upon a medical officer exercising a prescribed option and affirming that they have not undertaken private practice. The scheme contemplates a conscious exercise of choice by the employee, making it a condition precedent for claiming the benefit.

Court Defines Two Separate Classes For Pay Fixation

Once the statutory rules provide different methodologies for pay fixation depending on the admissibility of NPA, the contention that both categories are similarly situated cannot be accepted. The bench observed that the distinction created by the Rules of 2017 is founded upon an intelligible differentia. One category voluntarily surrendered private practice for NPA, while the other chose to continue private practice, accepting the financial consequences thereof.

NPA Classified As Pay For Limited Fixation Purposes

The Court found that the Tribunal’s finding that NPA cannot be merged with pay was legally unsustainable. Referring to Rule 7(24) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, the Court noted that "pay" includes emoluments specially classed as such by the Governor. The 2017 notification expressly treated Dearness Allowance on NPA as a relevant component for fixation purposes, and the Court held that such inclusion under a statutory scheme is permissible.

No Pay Anomaly In Law Due To Voluntary Exercise Of Option

The Court held that a pay anomaly only arises when identically situated employees are treated differently without a rational basis. In this case, the difference in pay was a direct result of different service benefits and restrictions attached to the options chosen by the doctors. The Court remarked that doctors declining NPA continue to enjoy the monetary gains from private practice, and a comparison based solely on government salary would be artificial and incomplete.

Tribunal Lacked Jurisdiction To Direct Fresh Options

The Court criticized the Tribunal for directing the State to grant a fresh option regarding NPA, noting that the validity of the 2017 Notification was never challenged. In the absence of such a challenge, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to alter the scheme or direct the reopening of options. The bench stated that such directions amount to "judicial legislation" and travel far beyond the permissible limits of judicial interference in administrative matters.

Reliance On Supreme Court Precedents Regarding Pay Fixation

Citing Union of India v. P.V. Hariharan, the Court reminded the Tribunal that fixation of pay is an executive function and courts should exercise restraint unless hostile discrimination is proved. It also relied on Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Sujit Baran Mukherjee to hold that the principle of stepping up is inapplicable when the pay difference arises from special circumstances or additional responsibilities, such as surrendering the right to private practice.

Court Quashes Tribunal Order And Dismisses Doctors' Claims

The Court concluded that the Tribunal proceeded on notions of equity and sympathy while ignoring the explicit mandate of the Rules. Finding the Tribunal's order to be suffering from patent illegality and jurisdictional error, the High Court quashed the direction to step up the pay. Consequently, all writ petitions filed by the State were allowed, and the individual petitions filed by doctors seeking parity were dismissed.

Date of Decision: 26 May 2026