K.C. BAJAJ AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 14 S.C.R. 1100 · Decided: 27-11-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 14 S.C.R. 1100 
K.C. BAJAJ AND OTHERS 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
(CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10640-46 OF 2013) 
NOVEMBER 27, 2013 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
c 
Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) - Inclusion of, for 
calculating the pension - For the doctors employed with 
different departments of Central Government other than the 
doctors in Defence services - The benefit denied relying on 
the case wherein Supreme Court denied such benefit to the 
D doctors of defence services - Held: The case of doctors in 
defence services was covered by Circular dated 7.6.1999 
issued by Ministry of Defence - The case of the doctors in 
different departments was covered by O.M. dated 7.4.1998 
issued by Ministry of Personnel (Public Grievances and 
E Pension), Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare -
As per O.M. dated 7.4.1998, NPA was to be counted as pay 
for all service benefits including retirement benefits, but no 
such decision was contained in Circular dated 7.6.1999 -
Hence, in view of this distinction, the benefit could not have 
been denied to the doctors in other departments relying on 
F the case of doctors in defence services. 
The appellants, who were the doctors employed with 
the Central Government were paid Non-Practicing 
Allowance (NPA) as part of their monthly pay in lieu of 
G private practice, availability of less promotional avenues 
and late entry in the service. Initially NPA was paid at a 
fixed rate commensurate with the rank of the doctors and 
their pay scale. 5th Pay Commission revised the formula 
H 
1100 
K.C. BAJAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 
1101 
of calculating NPA making it 25% of the basic pay of a 
A 
Government Doctor. 
Vide O.M. dated 7.4.1998, Central Government fixed 
the NPA ratio at 25% of the basic pay subject to the 
condition that pay +NPA shall not exceed Rs. 29,500/- for 
8 
the doctors belonging to Central Health Services; and 
that NPA shall count as pay for all service benefits 
including retiral benefits. 
Thereafter O.M. dated 
17.12.1996 was issued that w.e.f. 1.1.1996 pension of 
pensioners irrespective of the date of their retirement C 
shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the 
revised scale of pay. By another O.M. dated 29.10.1999, 
it was clarified that NPA does not form part of the scales 
of pay and the same is not to be added to the minimum 
of the revised scale of pay. 
D 
The employees who retired from Railways prior to 
1.1.1996 challenged the O.M. dated 29.10.1999 before 
Central Administrative Tribunal seeking direction to 
include the element of NPA for the purpose of computing 
t.heir pension and quash the O.M. dated 29.101999. The 
E 
applications were dismissed. The order of Tribunal when 
challenged, the High Court relied on O.M. dated 7.4.1998 
and allowed the claim of the employees. When the 
challenge to the order of High Court was pending 
consideration with the Supreme Court, other similarly 
situated doctors sought for the benefit in terms of the 
order of High Court. The Central Government after 
obtaining opinion of Attorney General for India accorded 
approval for acceptance of the High Court order and 
appeal to Supreme Court was also withdrawn. Central 
Government accordingly proposed withdrawal of O.M. 
G 
dated 29.10.1999. 
But before the O.M. could be 
withdrawn, Supreme Court delivered judgment In the 
petitions filed by the doctors of defence services [Co/. B.J. 
Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India and Ors. (2006) 11 
F 
H 
1102 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 14 S.C.R. 
A SCC 709, and in view of that order, the Central 
Government approved the proposal that O.M. dated 
29.10.1999 may not be withdrawn. 
The claim of the appellant in the present appeal was 
8 also denied in view of *Col .B.J. Akkara's case. The 
decision of denial was approved by the Administrative 
Tribunal as well as the High Court. Hence the present 
appeals. 
c 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Union of India adopted pick and 
choose methodology in resisting the claim of similarly 
situated doctors that NPA payable to them shall be taken 
into consideration for calculating the pension. Such an 
0 approach by the Union of India is ex-facie arbitrary, unjust 
and has resulted in violation of Article 14 of the 
Constitution. [Para 29] [1134-C-D] 
2. The judgment in *Co/. B.J. Akkara's case cannot 
be applied to the appellants' case because the circulars, 
E which fell for interpretation in that case and those under 
consi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.