Medical Officers opting out of NPA cannot claim pay parity or stepping up of pay qua juniors.

The respondents (Medical Officers/Specialists) were appointed under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963.

Following the implementation of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2017, the State fixed the pay of doctors who opted for Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) by adding Dearness Allowance (DA) on the NPA to their basic pay.

The respondents, having consciously declined NPA to maintain their right to private practice, were excluded from this specific addition, resulting in junior doctors who opted for NPA drawing a higher salary.

The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal allowed the doctors' appeals, directing the State to either provide a fresh option for NPA or step up their pay to match their juniors.

The State challenged these orders via writ petitions, while other doctors approached the High Court directly for similar relief.

1. Whether the difference in pay fixation between Medical Officers opting for NPA and those declining it constitutes a "pay anomaly" warranting the "stepping up" of pay under Rule 11(7) of the Rules of 2017.

2. Whether the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the State to grant a fresh option for NPA in the absence of a challenge to the validity of the statutory rules.

The Court applied Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2017, which distinguishes pay fixation for general employees (Clause A) and Medical Officers drawing NPA (Clause B).

It relied on Rule 7(24) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, which includes emoluments specially classed as ‘pay’ by the Governor.

The Court further applied the principle from Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Sujit Baran Mukherjee (1997), establishing that stepping up of pay is inapplicable when the pay difference arises from fortuitous or special circumstances like additional allowances.

The Court followed Union of India v. P.V. Hariharan (1997), which cautions Tribunals against interfering with pay scales and statutory fixation formulas without evidence of hostile discrimination.

The Court reasoned that the Rules of 2017 expressly created two distinct classes for pay fixation: those covered under Rule 11(A) and those under Rule 11(B).

The addition of DA on NPA for the latter group was a deliberate statutory benefit for doctors who surrendered their right to private practice.

The Court observed that since the respondents consciously chose to continue private practice and declined NPA, they do not constitute a "homogeneous class" with those who opted for it; thus, no "hostile discrimination" or legal "anomaly" exists.

The Court held that "stepping up" of pay under Rule 11(7) applies only to identically situated employees, which was not the case here as the juniors were receiving a legitimate benefit attached to a specific option.

The Court found that the Tribunal engaged in "judicial legislation" by ordering fresh options for NPA when the underlying Notification had not been challenged.

The Court allowed the State's writ petitions, quashed the Tribunal's order dated 16.08.2021, and dismissed the writ petitions filed by individual doctors seeking parity.