Court Rules Voluntary Refusal of Non-Practicing Allowance Bars Future Claims for Pay Equality
In a significant judgment affecting government medical officers in Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court has ruled that doctors who voluntarily declined the Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) cannot later demand salary parity with junior doctors who opted for the benefit and consequently receive higher pay.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma, in an order dated May 26, 2026, set aside a previous ruling of the Rajasthan Services Appellate Tribunal that had directed the State Government to raise the salaries of senior medical officers who had not opted for NPA to match the pay of their juniors who had availed the allowance.
High Court Upholds Government’s Pay Fixation Formula
The dispute arose after the implementation of the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission. Under the revised pay structure, doctors who opted for NPA had their pay fixed by adding Dearness Allowance (DA) on NPA to their existing salary. Medical officers who did not opt for NPA were excluded from this calculation, resulting in some junior doctors drawing higher salaries than their seniors.
Challenging the arrangement, several senior medical officers argued that NPA is merely an allowance and should not be treated as part of the basic pay for salary fixation. They sought either a notional NPA benefit or an increase in their salaries to match those of their juniors.
However, the State Government maintained that the difference in pay was not an anomaly but a direct consequence of the doctors’ own decision to decline NPA.
NPA Is Optional and Conditional, Says Court
Examining the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2017, along with related amendments and Finance Department clarifications, the High Court observed that NPA is neither automatic nor attached to a medical post by default.
The court noted that doctors become eligible for NPA only after exercising the prescribed option within the stipulated period and submitting a declaration affirming that they are not engaged in private practice. Without fulfilling these conditions, no enforceable right to claim NPA arises.
According to the judgment, the allowance is linked to a conscious choice made by the medical officer and compliance with procedural requirements, rather than merely holding a government medical post.
Doctors Enjoying Private Practice Cannot Claim NPA Benefits
The High Court further emphasized that doctors who decline NPA continue to enjoy the financial benefits of private medical practice. Therefore, comparing their government salary alone with that of doctors who surrendered private practice rights in exchange for NPA would be incomplete and misleading.
The bench observed that a doctor who consciously chooses to continue private practice cannot subsequently seek the financial advantages associated with foregoing that practice.
No Equivalence Between NPA and Non-NPA Categories
The court held that medical officers governed by Rule 11(A) of the 2017 Rules, who do not receive NPA, cannot be compared with those governed by Rule 11(B), who receive the allowance and whose pay is calculated under a separate formula.
As a result, the High Court concluded that there is no legal basis for claiming pay parity between the two categories of doctors and overturned the Tribunal’s direction to step up the salaries of officers who had declined NPA.
Major Implications for Government Doctors
The ruling clarifies that opting out of Non-Practicing Allowance is a voluntary decision with financial consequences. Government doctors who choose to continue private practice cannot later challenge salary differences arising from the NPA framework. The judgment is expected to serve as an important precedent in future disputes involving pay fixation, allowances, and service benefits for medical officers in Rajasthan.
