Doctors declining NPA cannot later seek pay parity with juniors who opted for it: Rajasthan HC

Jaipur: In a recent ruling, the Rajasthan High Court specified that doctors who voluntarily declined Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) cannot later seek pay parity with juniors who opted for it.

With this observation, the HC bench on May 26, 2026, set aside an order directing the State Government to increase the salaries of medical officers who had not opted for the NPA, to bring their salaries at par with their juniors who had opted for the NPA.

"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," observed the HC bench comprising Justice Anand Sharma.

"Consequently, 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," it further held.

Background: 

The plea before the High Court was filed by the State Government, challenging an order of the Rajasthan Services Appellate Tribunal directing the State Government to increase the salaries of medical officers who were receiving lower salaries than their juniors due to the Non-Practicing Allowance.

Based on the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission, the pay of the doctors, who had opted for Non-Practicing Allowance, was fixed by adding Dearness Allowance on NPA to their existing pay. Meanwhile, since the respondents had not opted for NPA, their pay fixation was made without the addition of Dearness Allowance on NPA. Consequently, some junior doctors, who had opted for NPA, came to draw higher pay than the respondent officers.

The responding medical officers alleged that the NPA is merely an allowance and cannot be included in the basic pay. Further, they also stated that junior officers who opted for the non-practising allowance were illegally receiving higher salaries.

Therefore, the officers requested the 'notional' benefit of NPA or prayed that their salaries be increased to the level of their junior officers, as senior officers cannot be paid less than their junior officers.

On the other hand, it was the argument of the State Government that there was no 'anomaly' in fixing the salary, but it was a direct result of the conscious choice that each medical officers had made.

Earlier, the Tribunal had allowed the doctors' appeal, observing that NPA was an allowance and could not be merged with basic pay. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the petitioners either to grant a fresh option regarding NPA or to step up the pay of the respondents with the juniors.

Observations by the High Court: 

While considering the matter, the HC bench took note of Rule 11 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2017, Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 11 of the Rules of 2017, the amendment to the rules, and two explanations issued by the Finance Department.

"Thus, from a conjoint reading of the relevant Rules and the instructions governing the grant of Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA), it is manifestly clear that the grant of NPA is neither automatic, nor an inherent consequence merely of holding a post specified under the Rules. The entitlement to receive NPA is conditional in nature and is wholly dependent upon the concerned Medical Officer exercising the prescribed option within the stipulated period and furnishing the requisite declaration/affidavit affirming that he has not undertaken private practice during the relevant period. The scheme itself contemplates conscious exercise of option by the employee and strict adherence to the prescribed procedure as a condition precedent for claiming such benefit. Therefore, unless the concerned employee submits the requisite option form within the time prescribed under the Rules along with the affidavit regarding non-engagement in private practice, no enforceable right to claim NPA accrues in his/her favour. Whereas, upon due compliance of the aforesaid requirements within the stipulated time, NPA becomes admissible in accordance with the Rules. Hence, the admissibility of NPA is not attached to the post simpliciter, but is dependent upon fulfilment of the mandatory procedural and substantive conditions prescribed under the governing provisions," the HC bench noted at this outset.

The Court also noted that there was no dispute regarding the legal position that Non-Practicing Allowance is optional in the State service.

"A doctor opting for NPA relinquishes the right to private practice, whereas a doctor declining NPA remains entitled to undertake private medical practice and derive monetary benefit therefrom. Hence, the distinction between the two classes is, therefore, founded upon a conscious and voluntary exercise of option by individual doctors," the bench observed.

According to the High Court, the entire foundation of the respondent employees' claim rests upon the contention that despite declining NPA, he/she should still be treated at par with those doctors who opted for NPA and surrendered the right of private practice. "Such contention, in the considered opinion of this Court, is fundamentally misconceived," it observed.

"This Court finds that clause 11(B)(1) of the Rules of 2017, in clear and unambiguous terms, stipulates that in respect of those Medical Officers, who were admissible to and drawing Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA), the existing basic pay was required to be multiplied by a factor of 2.57 and, thereafter, an additional component equivalent to the Dearness Allowance payable on NPA as on 01.01.2016 was also required to be added for the purpose of fixation of revised pay. The aforesaid provision leaves no manner of doubt that the rule making authority, being fully conscious of the special status and pecuniary implications attached to NPA, deliberately carved out a distinct and separate formula for revision of pay in the case of doctors, who were in receipt of NPA. On the other hand, Clause 11(A) of the Rules of 2017 prescribes the normal method of pay revision applicable to employees, who were not drawing NPA. Thus, the Rules themselves recognise two separate and distinct classes for the purpose of pay fixation, namely, one comprising Medical Officers drawing NPA and the other comprising employees not drawing such allowance," it further held.

Therefore, the bench concluded that once the statutory rules themselves provide different methologies for pay fixation depending upon the admissibility of NPA, the contention that both categories are similarly situated for the purpose of revision of pay cannot be accepted.

"The distinction created by the Rules of 2017 is 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 very inclusion of Dearness Allowance on NPA as a component for calculation under Clause 11(B)(1) demonstrates that receipt of NPA formed an integral and indispensable basis for grant of the enhanced benefit under the revised pay structure," it observed.

Consequently, the bench held that 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," it concluded.

According to the High Court, the Tribunal, while passing the order, has virtually ignored the plain language employed in the statutory notification. "Once the Rules of 2017 themselves specifically provide the manner of fixation for doctors drawing NPA, the Tribunal could not have substituted its own interpretation on equitable considerations," it observed.

"...it is quite clear that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that NPA cannot be merged with pay is also legally unsustainable. Rule 7(24) of the Rajasthan Service Rules clearly provides that “pay” includes such emoluments as may be specially classed as pay by the Governor. The revised pay fixation notification itself treats Dearness Allowance on NPA as a relevant component for fixation purposes in the case of doctors drawing NPA. Therefore, for the limited purpose of revised pay fixation under the statutory scheme, inclusion of DA on NPA cannot be said to be impermissible," held the bench.

"The Tribunal has further fallen in serious error in treating the resultant difference in pay as a “pay anomaly”. A pay anomaly arises where two identically situated employees are treated differently without any rational basis. In the present case, the respondent and the doctors, who opted for NPA, do not constitute one homogeneous class for the purpose of pay fixation under the Rules of 2017. One category voluntarily surrendered private practice and accepted NPA, whereas the other category consciously chose to continue private practice by declining NPA. The financial consequences flowing from such exercise of option cannot be termed discriminatory," it further observed.

Regarding the contention of the respondent that juniors cannot draw higher pay than seniors, the bench observed that

"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."

Accordingly, the HC bench set aside the Tribunal's order, holding, "This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal suffers from patent illegality, misinterpretation of the statutory provisions and jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/06/01/rajasthan-hc-npa-351259.pdf

Also Read: Doctors oppose Bihar govt's ban on private practice