Back
2026 Supreme(Raj) 282
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Medical and Health Department – Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, S/o. Late Shri Sitaram Sharma – Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8978 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1846 of 2026 , S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17948 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17959 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17961 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18180 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18186 of 2022S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18204 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18209 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18214 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18215 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18221 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18222 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18230 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18232 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18237 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18238 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18239 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18243 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18247 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18313 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18315 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18316 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18318 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12 of 2023, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 38 of 2023, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 244 of 2023, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 871 of 2023, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 917 of 2023, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1352 of 2023, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1358 of 2023, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1946 of 2023, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18374 of 2024, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2763 of 2026, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2950 of 2026
Decided On : 26-05-2026
For the Petitioners:Mr. Archit Bohra Additional Government Counsel with Mr. Yashwant Singh Advocate & Mr. Rahul Verma Advocate, Mr. Vikas Kabra Advocate, Mr. Ashok Bansal Advocate, Mr. Tanveer Ahamad Advocate & Mr. Amir Aziz Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Ashok Bansal Advocate, Mr. Vikas Kabra Advocate, Ms. Chelsi Agarwal Advocate on behalf of Mr. Mahi Yadav, Additional Advocate General.
Stepping up of pay is inapplicable where pay differentials between seniors and juniors arise from the voluntary exercise of distinct service options, such as accepting an allowance in exchange for waiving private practice rights, as such employees do not constitute an identical or homogeneous class.
Headnote:(A) Service Rules - Pay Revision Rules - Non-Practicing Allowance - Stepping up of pay - Principle of stepping up of pay applies only to identically situated employees in the same cadre - It cannot be invoked where pay differential arises from the voluntary exercise of different options carrying distinct service benefits and restrictions. (Paras 17, 25, 34)
(B) Pay Fixation - Statutory Interpretation - Pay revision formula constitutes an intelligible differentia - Where rules provide separate methodologies for fixation based on the admissibility of an allowance, employees cannot claim parity based on subjective equitable considerations. (Paras 23, 24, 26)
Facts of the case:
Employees challenged the pay fixation methodology, contending that their pay was lower than that of their juniors because they did not opt for a specific allowance. The lower appellate forum directed the employer to either grant a fresh option for the allowance or step up the pay of the seniors to match the juniors. The employer challenged this order, asserting that the allowance was optional and that those not opting for it retained the right to engage in private practice, thereby justifying the difference in remuneration.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the allowance is conditional, strictly dependent on the non-undertaking of private practice. By opting not to receive the allowance, the employees retained the right to private practice, creating a distinct class. The relevant rules provided specific and separate formulas for pay adjustment for those in receipt of the allowance versus those who were not.
Issues: Whether the principle of stepping up of pay is applicable when a pay anomaly arises due to a voluntary choice of service conditions rather than an arbitrary administrative act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that a valid classification based on the exercise of options does not constitute a legal anomaly. Since the salary differential resulted from a conscious choice to retain private practice rights, the claimants were not similarly situated to their counterparts receiving the allowance. Consequently, the statutory provisions governing pay parity were found to be inapplicable to this scenario.
Result: Petitions allowed and the orders of the lower authority were quashed and set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context and factual history of the dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 7) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding npa pay parity. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. statutory framework and evolution of npa regulations. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. npa is voluntary and creates distinct pay categories. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. no pay parity for employees opting for different benefits. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 6. final judgment allowing petitions and quashing tribunal orders. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. This common judgment shall govern and decide the batch of instant writ petitions. Out of the said matters, S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 8978/2022, 17948/2022, 17959/2022, 17961/2022, 18180/2022, 18186/2022, 18204/202, 18209/2022, 18214/2022, 18215/2022, 18221/2022, 18222/2022, 18230/2022, 18232/2022, 18237/2022, 18238/2022, 18239/2022, 18243/2022, 18247/2022, 18313/2022, 18315/2022, 18316/2022, 18318/2022, 871/2023, 917/2023, 1352/2023, 1358/2023, 1946/2023, 2763/2026 and 2950/2026 have been preferred by the State Government assailing the orders passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the appeals instituted by the Medical Practitioners came to be allowed, whereas in some of the connected matters, i.e. in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 1846/2026, 12/2023, 38/2023, 244/2023 and 18374/2024, the aggrieved persons have directly approached this Court by way of writ petitions seeking the relief of stepping up of pay and grant of consequential benefits of pay fixation under the Rajasthan Civil Service (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2017 qua their juniors, who have been getting higher pay on account of inclusion of Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) in their basic pay and other allied issues. Since the factual matrix, nature of grievances, questions involved and the issues arising for consideration in all these matters are substantially similar, interconnected and interwoven, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, all the matters were heard analogously and are being adjudicated and decided by this common judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience and understanding the dispute involved in the present batch of cases, pleadings and facts of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8978/2022 (State of Rajasthan & Others vs. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma) are being taken into consideration.
3. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners-State challenging legality and validity of order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent-employee came to be allowed and the petitioners were directed either to provide a fresh option regarding Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) or to grant parity of pay with juniors by stepping up the pay of the respondent.
4. The facts, in brief, as pleaded in the writ petition are that the respondent was initially appointed as Medical Officer under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963 pursuant to selection conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Thereafter, the respondent earned promotions to the posts of Junior Specialist, Senior Specialist and ultimately Principal Specialist. After implementation of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 2017’) based on the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission, the pay of doctors, who had opted for Non Practicing Allowance, was fixed by adding Dearness Allowance on NPA to their existing pay. Since the respondent had not opted for NPA as on 01.01.2016, his pay fixation was made without addition of Dearness Allowance on NPA. Consequently, some junior doctors, who had opted for NPA, came to draw higher pay than the respondent.
5. The respondent, being aggrieved by such fixa
