Remuneration Of Junior Resident Doctor Counts As Income: Delhi High Court Upholds Cancellation Of EWS Appointment To AIIMS
The Delhi High Court has held that the remuneration received by a doctor during Junior Residency constitutes “income” for the purpose of determining eligibility under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category.A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan thus upheld the cancellation of Petitioner's Senior Resident appointment on the ground that the prescribed...
The Delhi High Court has held that the remuneration received by a doctor during Junior Residency constitutes “income” for the purpose of determining eligibility under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category.
A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan thus upheld the cancellation of Petitioner's Senior Resident appointment on the ground that the prescribed income ceiling was breached.
“The expression “gross annual income” for the purposes of EWS reservation refers to the income taken into account under the Tax Act. The policy framework, therefore, leaves little scope for exclusion of any component of income which is otherwise reflected as income for the relevant financial year,” it said.
In the present case, the Court added, “it is not in dispute that the Petitioner received a total amount of Rs. 13,59,032/- during the financial year 2023-24 from Respondent No.1 while working as a Junior Resident. This figure emerges from the Form-16 and pay slips placed on record pursuant to the RTI application and was also noticed by the Tribunal in the Impugned Order. The said amount, on the face of the record, exceeds the income ceiling prescribed under the EWS policy.”
The Court thus affirmed the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had upheld the action taken by AIIMS in terminating the petitioner.
The petitioner had contended that the amount received during Junior Residency was merely a “stipend” and could not be treated as income for the purpose of EWS eligibility.
Rejecting this submission, the High Court observed that the nomenclature used is not determinative, and what is relevant is the nature and character of the payment.
“The record unequivocally reflects that Junior Resident Doctors were required to discharge regular clinical duties, patient-care responsibilities and night duties in the hospital, alongside their academic training. The fact that the remuneration was reflected in the pay slips as “gross salary”, subjected to statutory tax deductions and reported through Form-16, fortifies the conclusion that the payment was compensatory in nature and not a scholarship granted solely to defray educational expenses,” it said.
As such, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition.
Appearance: Dr. Amit George, Mr. Akshay Bhandari, Mr. Manu Jain, Ms Rupam Jha, Ms. Medhavi Bhatia, Mr. Adhishwar Suri, Mr. Bhrigu A. Pamidighantam, Mr. Vaibhav Gandhi, Mr. Kartikay Puneesh, Advs for Petitioner; Mr. Anand Varma & Mr. Ayush Gupta Advs. for R-1. Mr. Shrey Kapoor, Mr. Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal & Ms. Deepti Rathi, Advs for R-2.
Case title: Dr. Bahubali N. Shetti v. AIIMS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 191
Case no.: W.P.(C) NO. 1339/2026