The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that doctors who voluntarily declined the Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) cannot later seek pay parity with junior doctors who opted for the allowance. The order was passed by Justice Anand Sharma on May 26, 2026, while deciding a batch of connected writ petitions filed by Dr Dinesh Kumar Sharma and others. The copy of the order was uploaded on Friday.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose after the implementation of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2017, based on the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission. Several senior doctors in the state alleged that despite holding senior positions, they were receiving lower salaries than junior doctors. This anomaly occurred because junior doctors had opted for NPA, which resulted in a higher revised pay fixation through the inclusion of dearness allowance on NPA.
Petitioners' Argument
Dr Dinesh Kumar Sharma and other senior doctors approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, arguing that NPA was merely an allowance and could not be merged with basic pay in a manner that allowed juniors to draw a higher salary than seniors. The Tribunal, through its order dated August 16, 2021, directed the state government either to grant a fresh option regarding NPA or to step up the pay of senior doctors at par with junior doctors.
State Government's Stand
Challenging the tribunal's decision, the Rajasthan government argued before the High Court that doctors opting for NPA and those declining it form two distinct categories. The state submitted that doctors availing NPA surrender their right to private practice, whereas those refusing NPA remain free to undertake private medical practice and derive monetary benefits from it.
High Court's Observation
Accepting the state's arguments, the High Court observed that "NPA is neither automatic nor attached to the post itself". The court further stated that "NPA is conditional upon doctors exercising the prescribed option and undertaking not to engage in private practice." Justice Sharma held that the 2017 pay rules clearly prescribe a separate formula for pay fixation of doctors drawing NPA. Therefore, doctors who consciously declined the allowance could not invoke the rule relating to stepping up of pay to claim equality with those receiving NPA benefits.
This judgment reinforces the principle that voluntary choices regarding allowances have consequences and cannot be retrospectively challenged to claim parity.
