The Delhi High Court has ruled that remuneration received during Junior Residency qualifies as “income” for determining eligibility under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan upheld the cancellation of Dr. Bahubali N. Shetti’s Senior Resident appointment at AIIMS after finding that his income exceeded the prescribed EWS ceiling.
The Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had earlier upheld AIIMS’ action.
Court Interprets “Gross Annual Income” Under EWS Policy
The Bench examined the meaning of “gross annual income” under the EWS framework. It held that the expression refers to income recognised under the Income Tax Act.
“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,” the Court observed.
Income Exceeded EWS Ceiling
The Court noted that Dr. Shetti received ₹13,59,032 during the financial year 2023–24 while working as a Junior Resident with Respondent No. 1.
Form-16 records and pay slips obtained through an RTI application reflected this figure. The Tribunal also recorded the same amount in its impugned order.
The Court held that this sum exceeded the income ceiling prescribed under the EWS policy. As a result, the petitioner became ineligible for reservation benefits.
Stipend Argument Rejected
Dr. Shetti argued that the amount paid during Junior Residency was a “stipend” and should not count as income.
The High Court rejected this contention. It clarified that nomenclature does not determine the legal character of payment. The Court instead examined the nature of duties and the character of remuneration.
“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,” the Bench stated.
Tribunal Decision Upheld
After reviewing the record, the High Court found no legal error in the orders passed by AIIMS or the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The Bench declined to interfere 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 and Mr. Kartikay Puneesh appeared for the petitioner.
Mr. Anand Varma and Mr. Ayush Gupta represented Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Shrey Kapoor, Mr. Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal and Ms. Deepti Rathi appeared for Respondent No. 2.
The case is titled Dr. Bahubali N. Shetti v. AIIMS.
