JAIPUR — The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that government Medical Officers who consciously decline the Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) to engage in private practice form a completely distinct statutory class from those who surrender their private practice. Consequently, doctors continuing private practice cannot invoke “stepping up” provisions under the Revised Pay Scale Rules to claim pay parity with juniors who receive the allowance.
A single-judge bench of Justice Anand Sharma set aside previous service tribunal orders that had directed the state government to step up the pay of senior medical officers to match their juniors. The High Court clarified that NPA is neither automatic nor attached to the medical post itself; instead, it is conditional upon a doctor explicitly exercising a statutory option and executing a legally binding undertaking to completely refrain from private medical practices.
Case Context: The Origin of the Pay Parity Dispute
The legal battle emerged under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2017, which outline separate formulas for pay fixation based on a medical officer’s operational choices. Under these statutory guidelines, doctors who formally opt out of private practice receive an additional NPA calculated at 20% of their Basic Pay, subject to a maximum fiscal cap.
A group of senior government doctors, including Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, chose to maintain their private clinical practices, thereby consciously declining the NPA benefit. However, when subsequent pay revisions resulted in junior medical officers—who had surrendered private practice and accepted the NPA—drawing a higher total monthly salary, the senior doctors filed petitions before the State Service Appeals Tribunal. They argued that a junior colleague drawing a higher pay scale than a senior counter-part constituted a structural “pay anomaly” that required administrative correction via salary stepping-up.
The state government aggressively challenged the tribunal’s initial approvals before the High Court, asserting that the financial divergence was the direct result of a voluntary choice rather than an arbitrary administrative error.
High Court Verdict: Volition Extinguishes Claims of Anomaly
Accepting the state’s arguments in the case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma (2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 215), Justice Anand Sharma ruled that the distinction between the two groups of medical professionals is anchored entirely on a conscious, voluntary exercise of statutory options.
The court emphasized that a valid pay anomaly only exists when two identically situated employees are treated unequally by the state. In this scenario, the two categories of doctors are fundamentally different:
- Category A: Doctors who voluntarily surrender their right to private practice, accept strict disciplinary liability for any violation, and receive the 20% NPA.
- Category B: Doctors who retain their absolute professional freedom to conduct private medical operations, consulting chambers, or laboratory practices for independent monetary gain.
The High Court observed that mere seniority does not guarantee identical or higher pay if a salary variance stems from statutory rules, specialized incentives, or an employee’s personal choice. The higher pay drawn by juniors is a lawful, exclusive benefit meant to compensate for the total loss of private income.
Immediate Takeaways for Government Doctors in India
This judicial precedent carries substantial weight for government medical officers, state health departments, and public service commissions across India:
- Finality of Options: Once a government doctor signs a declaration choosing to retain or reject private practice under state pay revisions, they cannot later dispute the financial outcomes of that decision using seniority rules.
- Validity of Dual-Track Pay Scales: The ruling firmly protects the state’s right to implement separate pay fixation formulas within public health services to balance institutional needs and incentivize full-time public dedication.
- Strict NPA Enforcement: Medical officers drawing the NPA remain under stringent legal notice that the allowance is purely conditional, rendering any parallel private clinical practice an immediate ground for disciplinary action.
