‘Pay Minus Pension’ Applies Only Prospectively | Rajasthan HC Declares AIIMS Doctors As Re-Employed, Bars Retrospective Recovery
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Rajasthan Division Bench of Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali held that doctors employed at AIIMS, Jodhpur after their retirement from earlier government service fall under the category of "re-employed persons" and must be governed by the applicable statutory provisions, including the "pay minus pension" formula. However, the Court directed that AIIMS, Jodhpur shall not recover any excess amount retrospectively and the "pay minus pension" principle shall be applied only prospectively from the date of judgment, i.e., May 15, 2025. The Court partly allowed and partly dismissed the batch of writ petitions filed by both the institution and the doctors by drawing a clear distinction between statutory obligations and procedural lapses.
The Division Bench was adjudicating multiple connected writ petitions arising from the same controversy involving faculty members at AIIMS, Jodhpur who were receiving pension from their previous government service and later appointed at AIIMS. The core dispute cantered around whether these appointments were to be treated as re-employment, thereby attracting the "pay minus pension" principle, and whether AIIMS, Jodhpur could revise their pay retrospectively.
The litigation originated from a series of connected writ petitions filed both by AIIMS, Jodhpur and by several faculty members employed at the institute. The doctors, having retired from prior government services and drawing pensions, were subsequently appointed to Group 'A' faculty positions at AIIMS, Jodhpur in response to an advertisement dated January 22, 2018.
The doctors contended that their appointments were made through a direct recruitment process and not on a re-employment or contractual basis. Their appointment letters issued around September 2018 contained no clause referring to "pay minus pension". For several years following their appointments, the doctors continued to receive full salaries as per the standard pay matrix applicable to Central Government employees, without any deductions for the pension they were concurrently drawing from their previous employment.
In November 2023, AIIMS, Jodhpur circulated a notice requesting pension details from faculty members who were also pensioners. This notice followed communications from the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare dated November 8, 2023, November 22, 2023, and December 20, 2023. These communications referred to Office Memoranda from the Department of Personnel & Training and the Department of Expenditure, and directed compliance with the rule of "pay minus pension" for all retired government servants re-employed in any capacity.
Pursuant to the Ministry’s communications, AIIMS, Jodhpur sought to revise the pay structure of the concerned doctors by deducting their pension amounts from their current salary and proposed recovering any overpaid amount retrospectively from the date of their initial appointment.
The aggrieved doctors approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jodhpur Bench, which delivered a common order on October 8, 2024. The Tribunal held that while the doctors did fall under the definition of re-employed persons, it was not legally permissible for AIIMS, Jodhpur to deduct pension retrospectively in absence of a prior stipulation in the advertisement or appointment letters.
Both parties challenged the Tribunal’s findings through writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court. The doctors sought quashing of the Tribunal’s finding that they were re-employed, and requested that they be recognized as directly recruited employees to whom re-employment provisions would not apply. On the other hand, AIIMS, Jodhpur challenged the finding that retrospective application of "pay minus pension" was impermissible.
The Court began its examination by considering the core legal issue: whether the petitioners qualified as re-employed persons under the applicable laws and regulations. It stated:
"After going through the Regulation 33, it emerges that any person who is reemployed in the Institute after retirement from the service of Institute or of State or Central Government or any statutory or local body administered by the Government, shall be treated as reemployed."
The Court rejected the doctors’ argument that their selection through direct recruitment exempted them from being classified as re-employed. It recorded: "Inviting the applications for direct recruitment from the eligible persons, do not suggest that the persons who are already retired and getting pension shall not be treated as reemployed persons."
Referring to the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences Regulations, 1999, the Court noted: "The provisions of Regulation 33 in categorical terms convey that if retired person is employed in the AIIMS he/she shall be treated as reemployed person."
The Court also considered the applicability of the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986: "The Orders of 1986 are applicable to all persons who are reemployed in the civil services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union Government after retirement getting pension from the service of Union Government including defence also."
While upholding the classification of the doctors as re-employed, the Court took a different view regarding retrospective recovery. It recorded: "The respondents did not assign any reason for not incorporating the condition of ‘Pay minus Pension’ in the letter of appointment. In the absence of any specific reply, we cannot say that whether this was on account of some error or mistake on the part of the respondents or it was a deliberate action on their part."
The Court further stated: "Without disclosing the reasons for not deducting the pension from the pay of the applicant, we cannot permit the respondents to deduct the pension from the pay of applicant that too with retrospective effect..."
On the procedural failure of AIIMS, Jodhpur, the Court observed:
"The statutes have to prevail unless found to be contrary to law. It is true that it was a direct recruitment, but at the same time, Regulation 33 of the Regulations of 1999 clearly prescribed that such re-employment in common parlance of the Doctors was under the same employer i.e. Union of India."
In conclusion, the Court issued the following directions:
"The instant D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.18761/2024, 18799/2024, 18832/2024, 18835/2024 & 4524/2025 preferred by the Doctors... stand dismissed."
"The instant D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.2573/2025, 925/2025, 1412/2025 & 1782/2025 preferred by the AIIMS, Jodhpur... stand partly allowed."
The Court directed that:
"As the doctors herein were re-employed, they shall be governed by the applicable provisions of law with respect to their pay fixation and the ‘pay minus pension’ formula vis-a-vis the doctors is to be followed in its true spirit and essence, prospectively, from the date of this judgment i.e. 15.05.2025."
"Accordingly, the recovery of amount by application of ‘pay minus pension’ shall not be made with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of their appointment in AIIMS, Jodhpur."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Johari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Lalit Parihar and Mr. Shubhankar Johari
Case Title: AIIMS, Jodhpur & Ors. v. Dr. Mahendra Kumar Garg & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:15512-DB
Case Number: CW-2573/2025 and connected matters
Bench: Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali
[Read/Download order]
