HC upholds separate pay rules for docs opting out of NPA

Jaipur: Rajasthan High Court has ruled that doctors who voluntarily declined Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) cannot later seek pay parity with juniors 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 by Dr Dinesh Kumar Sharma and others. The copy of the order was uploaded Friday.

The dispute arose after 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 because those juniors had opted for NPA, resulting in a higher revised pay fixation through inclusion of dearness allowance on NPA.

Dinesh and other 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 more salary than seniors. The Tribunal, through its order dated Aug 16, 2021, directed the state govt either to grant a fresh option regarding NPA or to step up the pay of senior doctors at par with juniors.

Challenging the tribunal’s decision, the Rajasthan govt argued before the HC 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.

Accepting the state’s arguments, the High Court observed that “NPA is neither automatic nor attached to the post itself”. “NPA is conditional upon doctors exercising the prescribed option and undertaking not to engage in private practice,” the court said.

Justice Sharma further 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.