The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has clarified that under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2017, medical officers who opted for and were drawing Non-Practicing Allowance and those who did not opt for or were not drawing NPA constitute two distinct classes for the purpose of revised pay fixation. Because Rule 11(1)(B) prescribes a special formula for those drawing NPA, including addition of the Dearness Allowance component on NPA, a doctor who declined NPA cannot claim parity or stepping up of pay with a junior doctor whose pay was fixed under that special formula.
The Court held that Rule 11(7) relating to stepping up of pay applies only where the senior and junior are similarly situated and the anomaly arises under identical conditions. It has no application where the difference in pay is the lawful consequence of different options voluntarily exercised by employees, especially where one class surrendered private practice to receive NPA and the other retained the right of private practice by declining NPA.
Accordingly, the Tribunal’s order directing fresh option or stepping up of pay was held to suffer from patent illegality, misinterpretation of the statutory provisions and jurisdictional error. The State’s writ petitions were allowed, the Tribunal’s order was quashed and set aside, and the connected writ petitions filed by the concerned individual doctors were dismissed.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that NPA under the applicable Rajasthan framework is neither automatic nor attached to the post simpliciter; it is conditional upon the concerned medical officer exercising the prescribed option within time and furnishing the required declaration or affidavit that no private practice was undertaken during the relevant period. Therefore, no enforceable right to claim NPA accrues unless those mandatory procedural and substantive conditions are fulfilled.
The Bench emphasised that there was no dispute that NPA is optional in State service. A doctor opting for NPA relinquishes the right to private practice, whereas a doctor declining NPA remains entitled to carry on private practice and derive monetary benefit from it. On that basis, the Bench held that the two groups are distinct classes created by a conscious and voluntary exercise of option, and therefore cannot automatically claim parity in pay fixation under the revised pay structure.
The Bench held that Rule 11(B)(1) of the 2017 Rules clearly creates a separate method of revised pay fixation for medical officers who were drawing NPA, including addition of the Dearness Allowance component on pre-revised NPA as on Jan 01, 2016. By contrast, employees not drawing NPA fall under the normal method in Rule 11(A). The statutory scheme therefore itself recognises two distinct categories for pay fixation, and the distinction was found by the Court to be rational and directly connected with the object of granting the enhanced benefit only to those who had opted for and were actually drawing NPA.
On stepping up, the Bench observed that Rule 11(7) applies only where an anomaly arises among employees similarly situated in the same cadre under identical conditions. Since the difference in pay here flowed from different options carrying different service consequences, including surrender or retention of private practice, the Bench held that the respondents and their juniors were not similarly situated for the purpose of stepping up. It therefore rejected the Tribunal’s treatment of the issue as a pay anomaly.
The Bench also found the Tribunal’s view that NPA cannot be merged with pay to be legally unsustainable. Referring to Rule 7(24) of the Rajasthan Service Rules and the revised pay fixation notification, the Bench held that for the limited purpose of revised pay fixation under the statutory scheme, inclusion of Dearness Allowance on NPA was expressly contemplated and therefore could not be treated as impermissible.
Additionally, the Bench observed that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in directing grant of a fresh option regarding NPA, particularly when the respondent had not challenged the validity of the statutory notification dated Oct 30, 2017. In the High Court’s view, such a direction effectively altered the statutory scheme and amounted to impermissible judicial legislation. The Bench also held that general circulars concerning pay anomalies could not override the specific statutory mechanism applicable to doctors drawing NPA.
Briefly, the batch of petitions arises out of disputes concerning fixation of pay of medical officers under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2017. In a large set of matters, the State of Rajasthan challenged orders of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal which had granted relief to doctors; in a smaller set of connected matters, individual doctors directly approached the High Court seeking stepping up of pay and consequential benefits on the ground that their juniors were drawing higher pay due to inclusion of Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) in pay fixation.
In the lead case, the respondent doctor had initially been appointed as a Medical Officer and was later promoted to Junior Specialist, Senior Specialist and then Principal Specialist. After implementation of the 2017 revised pay rules, the pay of doctors who had opted for NPA was fixed by adding Dearness Allowance on NPA to their existing pay, whereas the respondent, having not opted for NPA as on Jan 01, 2016, had his pay fixed without such addition. As a result, some junior doctors who had opted for NPA began drawing higher pay than him.
The respondent challenged this position before the Tribunal by arguing that NPA is only an allowance and cannot be merged with basic pay, and that he should either receive notional addition of NPA for pay fixation under the 2017 Rules or have his pay stepped up to match his juniors. The State opposed the claim by relying on Rule 7(24) of the Rajasthan Service Rules and Clause 11(B)(1) of the notification dated 30.10.2017, contending that the benefit of addition of Dearness Allowance on NPA was available only to doctors who were drawing NPA as on Jan 01, 2016, and that a doctor who declined NPA remained free to undertake private practice and therefore stood on a different footing.
The Tribunal directed the State either to provide a fresh option regarding NPA or to step up the respondent’s pay with that of his juniors. The State challenged that order before the High Court, which also examined the statutory and administrative background governing NPA, including the finance department orders of Sep 12, 2008, June 28, 2013 and Oct 30, 2017, which treated NPA as “pay” for certain purposes, made its admissibility conditional on exercising option and not undertaking private practice, and required periodic certification to that effect.
