Introduction:
In a significant judgment concerning service jurisprudence, pay fixation, and the doctrine of equal pay, the Rajasthan High Court has clarified that Medical Officers who consciously decline the benefit of Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) cannot subsequently seek pay parity with colleagues who opted for such allowance and accepted the accompanying restrictions. The ruling came in a batch of petitions led by State of Rajasthan & Another v. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma and other connected matters, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 215.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Anand Sharma while examining challenges mounted by the State of Rajasthan against orders passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had directed the State Government to step up the pay of certain Medical Officers who had chosen not to receive NPA but later claimed that they were drawing less salary than their juniors who had opted for the allowance. According to the Tribunal, such disparity constituted a pay anomaly that warranted corrective action.
The controversy arose from the statutory framework governing government doctors in Rajasthan. Under the applicable service rules, Medical Officers are given a choice either to continue private medical practice or to surrender that right in exchange for Non-Practicing Allowance. The allowance, calculated at twenty percent of the basic pay, serves as compensation for doctors who agree not to engage in private practice. Those who avail themselves of the allowance are subjected to disciplinary consequences if they violate the prohibition against private practice.
Conversely, Medical Officers who elect not to receive NPA retain the freedom to engage in private practice and earn additional income from such activities. The dispute emerged when some senior Medical Officers who had declined NPA found themselves drawing lower government salaries than junior doctors who had accepted the allowance. Claiming that a senior employee should not receive lesser pay than a junior, they sought either a notional addition of NPA or a stepping up of their pay scales.
The case thus required the High Court to determine whether employees who voluntarily chose different service conditions could nevertheless claim parity in salary structures and whether the resulting difference in pay constituted a legally recognizable anomaly under service law.
Arguments of the Parties:
The respondent Medical Officers, who had succeeded before the Tribunal, argued that the difference in pay between themselves and their juniors created an unjust and impermissible anomaly. Their principal contention was that Non-Practicing Allowance remained an allowance and could not be treated as an integral component of basic pay for determining parity among employees occupying the same cadre and performing substantially similar duties.
According to the respondents, seniority carries with it a legitimate expectation that a senior employee should not draw less salary than a junior employee in the same service. They contended that the implementation of revised pay scales had resulted in a situation where junior doctors receiving NPA were earning higher salaries than senior doctors who had not opted for the allowance. Such a situation, they argued, undermined settled principles of service jurisprudence and created an irrational disparity among similarly placed officers.
The respondents further submitted that NPA should not be allowed to distort the basic structure of pay fixation. In their view, the allowance was intended merely as compensation for refraining from private practice and should not become the basis for creating long-term differences in salary among officers belonging to the same cadre. Therefore, they claimed entitlement either to a notional addition of NPA for pay fixation purposes or to a stepping up of pay so that they would not receive less salary than their juniors.
Reliance was placed on the principle that service rules should be interpreted in a manner that avoids anomalous situations and promotes fairness among employees. The respondents argued that once they had attained seniority within the service, the State was under an obligation to ensure that they were not placed at a financial disadvantage vis-à-vis their juniors.
The State of Rajasthan, on the other hand, challenged the Tribunal’s reasoning and maintained that no anomaly existed. The State argued that the difference in pay was neither arbitrary nor accidental but was the direct and foreseeable consequence of choices voluntarily exercised by the Medical Officers themselves.
The State emphasized that the statutory scheme governing NPA creates two distinct categories of Medical Officers. One category consists of those who voluntarily surrender their right to private practice and, in return, receive the financial benefit of Non-Practicing Allowance. The other category consists of doctors who retain the freedom to engage in private practice and thereby forgo the allowance.
According to the State, the distinction between these categories is expressly recognized under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2017. Separate provisions govern the fixation of pay for officers receiving NPA and those who are not. Once the statutory rules themselves create distinct classifications, it cannot be argued that both groups are similarly situated for all purposes.
The State further contended that the respondents were seeking to enjoy the benefits of both systems simultaneously. Having consciously elected to continue private practice and earn additional income therefrom, they could not subsequently claim the financial advantages reserved for those who surrendered that opportunity. Such a claim, according to the State, was contrary to both equity and the statutory framework.
It was also argued that the concept of stepping up of pay applies only where an actual anomaly arises between identically situated employees. Since the two categories of doctors were governed by different rules and enjoyed different rights and obligations, there was no basis for invoking the doctrine of pay parity.
Court’s Judgment:
The Rajasthan High Court accepted the submissions advanced by the State and set aside the orders passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that the respondents’ claim was fundamentally misconceived because it ignored the statutory distinction between Medical Officers who opted for Non-Practicing Allowance and those who declined it.
At the outset, the Court examined the nature and purpose of NPA. It observed that the allowance is not attached to the post itself but is dependent upon a conscious and voluntary choice exercised by the concerned Medical Officer. The benefit becomes available only when a doctor agrees to refrain from private practice and complies with the conditions attached to such restriction.
The Court emphasized that the statutory scheme creates a clear quid pro quo. A doctor who opts for NPA sacrifices the opportunity to earn private income through medical practice and, in return, receives additional compensation from the State. A doctor who declines NPA retains the liberty to engage in private practice and derive financial benefits therefrom. Therefore, the two categories cannot be viewed as similarly situated.
Justice Anand Sharma noted that the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2017 expressly recognize this distinction. Rule 11(A) governs Medical Officers who are not receiving NPA, while Rule 11(B) applies to those who are receiving the allowance. The existence of separate statutory provisions demonstrates legislative recognition of two distinct classes of employees for the purpose of pay fixation.
The Court held that once the rules themselves establish separate categories, it becomes legally impermissible to claim parity between them. Equality under service law operates among employees who are similarly situated. It does not require identical treatment of employees who are governed by different conditions of service and who have voluntarily chosen different benefits and obligations.
The Court rejected the respondents’ contention that the resulting disparity constituted a pay anomaly. It observed that a pay anomaly ordinarily arises when two employees who are otherwise identically situated receive different pay because of unintended consequences of rule implementation. In such cases, corrective measures may be warranted.
However, the present case was fundamentally different. The variation in pay did not arise accidentally or because of any flaw in the pay fixation process. Instead, it was the direct consequence of choices consciously made by the employees themselves. One group surrendered private practice and received NPA; the other retained private practice and declined NPA. Since the distinction was intentional and legally recognized, it could not be characterized as an anomaly.
The Court also addressed the respondents’ reliance on the principle that seniors should not draw less salary than juniors. While acknowledging the general importance of maintaining fairness within public service, the Court clarified that seniority alone does not guarantee identical pay. Differences in salary may legitimately arise because of special allowances, incentives, qualifications, statutory benefits, or choices exercised by employees.
The Court observed that numerous service structures recognize circumstances where juniors may lawfully receive higher pay than seniors. What is prohibited is arbitrary discrimination. In the present case, the higher salary drawn by junior doctors was attributable to a lawful benefit available only to those who had opted for NPA and accepted its conditions.
A particularly significant aspect of the judgment is the Court’s recognition of the broader financial context. Justice Sharma observed that doctors who decline NPA continue to enjoy the economic advantage of private practice. Therefore, comparing only the government salary component presents an incomplete and distorted picture of the overall financial position of the employees.
The Court remarked that a doctor who consciously elects to continue private practice cannot subsequently seek the financial advantages attached to surrendering that practice. To permit such a claim would effectively allow an employee to enjoy the benefits of both options while bearing the burdens of neither.
The judgment further emphasized the importance of respecting voluntary choices made under statutory schemes. Service rules often provide employees with options that carry distinct benefits and obligations. Once an employee makes an informed choice, the legal consequences flowing from that choice cannot ordinarily be challenged merely because an alternative option would have produced a more advantageous financial outcome.
Applying these principles, the Court concluded that there was neither illegality nor arbitrariness in the pay fixation carried out by the State. The difference in salary between the two categories of Medical Officers was fully justified by the statutory framework and the differing conditions of service applicable to each group.
The Court therefore held that Medical Officers governed by Rule 11(A) of the 2017 Rules could not seek stepping up of pay with reference to those whose pay was fixed under Rule 11(B). Since the two groups were not similarly situated, the doctrine of pay parity had no application.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petitions filed by the State of Rajasthan and quashed the orders passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. The claims of the respondent Medical Officers for stepping up of pay or notional addition of NPA were rejected.
The judgment is a significant contribution to service jurisprudence because it reiterates a fundamental principle of equality law: parity can be claimed only among equals. Where employees voluntarily choose different service conditions and receive distinct benefits under a statutory framework, resulting differences in remuneration do not amount to discrimination or pay anomalies. The decision thus reinforces the importance of statutory classifications, individual choice, and the reciprocal nature of service benefits within public employment.