[2026:RJ-JP:1422] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5949/2015 Dr. Achla Kapoor, aged about 63 years, Joint Director, Retired Medical and Health Department (Public Health), Medical Directorate, Jaipur (Rajasthan); R/o 80/362, Patel Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Finance Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Director (Public Health), Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. The Director, Directorate of Pension and Pensioners Welfare, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Simlote For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 13/01/2026 1. By way of filing this writ petition, petitioner has assailed action of the respondents in deducting amount of Non-Practising Allowance (for short, 'NPA') to the tune of Rs.2,80,655/- from the gratuity payable to the petitioner on retirement and excluding the element of NPA while determining her monthly pension. She has further prayed for release of the deducted amount as well as for re-fixation of her pension after including the benefit of NPA. 2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as Medical Officer and during course of her service, she was promoted to the post of [2026:RJ-JP:1422] (2 of 5) [CW-5949/2015] Senior Specialist (Gynae) and vide order dated 11.01.2008, she was deputed as Additional Director (CAEI) in the Rajasthan Health System Development Project although her substantive post was Senior Specialist (Gynae). It is further submitted that as benefit of NPA was admissible to the post of Additional Director, vide order dated 16.06.2009, benefit of NPA was granted to the petitioner and accordingly, she was paid salary after including 20% of the basic pay in the salary amount. Such benefit was further revised from 20% to 25% in the year 2011. Vide order dated 03.10.2011, the petitioner was posted as Joint Director (Logistic Transport) and the post of Joint Director has also been treated to be entitled for grant of NPA, hence, vide order dated 28.06.2012 followed by order dated 29.10.2013 benefit of NPA @ 25% was granted and accordingly pay fixation of the petitioner was made. The petitioner continued to draw salary along with such benefit of NPA till date of her superannuation on 31.10.2012. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that without passing any specific order for withdrawing such benefit of NPA and without granting any opportunity of hearing whatsoever to the petitioner, in quite arbitrary and abrupt manner, in violation of principles of natural justice while issuing pension payment order, amount of Rs.2,80,655/- was deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner. That apart, while calculating the pension, portion of NPA was not considered and thus lesser pension was granted to the petitioner in comparison to the pension for which she is otherwise entitled under the Rules. 4. The writ petition filed by the petitioner has been opposed by learned Additional Government Counsel and he [2026:RJ-JP:1422] (3 of 5) [CW-5949/2015] submitted that the substantive post of the petitioner at the relevant time was Senior Specialist (Gynae) and as per order dated 12.09.2008 issued by Finance Department of Government of Rajasthan, a person holding the post of Senior Specialist (Gynae) was not entitled for the benefit of NPA, however, ignoring such order dated 12.09.2008, the benefit was earlier granted to the petitioner treating her to be Additional Director/Joint Director in Substantive capacity. Whereas, the petitioner was simply posted against the post of Additional Director and Joint Director and was never substantively appointed or promoted on such post. 5. Learned Additional Government Counsel further submitted that as and when, any bonafide error comes to the surface, the respondent-Government is well with its rights to withdraw such benefits, hence, no mistake whatsoever has been committed by respondents in deducting the excess amount of NPA earlier paid to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.2,80,655/- and by computing the pension while ignoring the element of NPA. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is not disputed by the parties that at the relevant time when benefit was granted to the petitioner, she was holding the post of Additional Director/Joint Director. It is not the case of the respondents that despite holding the post of Additional Director/Joint Director, she was carrying on her medical practice. Thus, the notification dated 12.09.2008 has not been properly appreciated by the respondents. The notification nowhere states that a person only on substantively holding the post of Additional Director/Joint Director was entitled for the NPA and the [2026:RJ-JP:1422] (4 of 5) [CW-5949/2015] harmonious construction of the notification/order dated 12.09.2008 would make it clear that every person holding the post of Additional Director/Joint Director irrespective of the fact whether he/she was holding the post in substantive capacity or even in officiating capacity against the post, and has not been carrying on medical practice, would be entitled for the benefit of NPA. Accordingly, such benefit was rightly granted by the respondents to the petitioner. 8. Furthermore, the conduct of respondents in directly making recovery from the gratuity of the petitioner, without passing any order whatsoever for withdrawing the benefit of NPA earlier granted to the petitioner, as well as without passing any order for revised pay fixation after withdrawing such benefit is a serious procedural lapse and makes the action whimsical and unjustified. Such an action shows that the order of deduction of NPA amount as well as granting the pension by neglecting the NPA element at considerably lower stage is totally arbitrary and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 9. It is also not disputed that even principles of natural justice have not been followed in the instant case as prior to making such deduction and reducing the pension by excluding NPA while determining pay of the petitioner on the date of retirement, no notice whatsoever was given to the petitioner, nor has there been any enquiry, in order to determine that such benefits were wrongly availed by the petitioner. It is also not the case of the respondents that petitioner has committed any fraud or misrepresentation while getting such benefit and rather the benefit of NPA was granted by the respondents at their own. [2026:RJ-JP:1422] (5 of 5) [CW-5949/2015] 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and on the basis of analyzing the facts, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed and, is hereby, allowed. Deduction of NPA in the tune of Rs.2,80,655/- made by the respondents as well as calculating pension of the petitioner while excluding the benefit of NPA is held illegal. The respondents are directed to refund the deducted amount of NPA along with interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioner, as well as to revise the pension by including the element of NPA while assessing her last pay drawn on the date of her retirement. Necessary exercise shall be carried out within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and arrears of the revised pension shall also be sanctioned and released to the petitioner. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/14