Delhi High Court on Stipend for Foreign National PG Students at AIIMS: Classification Is Valid; No Right to Stipend

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court allowed AIIMS’s appeals and set aside the 2013 Single Judge judgment that had directed stipend payments to foreign-national postgraduate students. The Court held that candidates admitted under the Foreign National / Sponsored Category form a constitutionally valid separate class, as these seats arise from diplomatic arrangements and carry a “no-financial-liability” condition for AIIMS. Since the students knowingly accepted admission under a category that clearly stated “no emoluments,” they cannot later claim stipend. The principle of equal pay for equal work was held inapplicable because classification based on mode of admission and funding structure is a valid basis for differential treatment.

Background:

• AIIMS filed appeals against a 2013 Single Judge order directing that foreign-national PG students be paid stipend equal to Indian Junior Residents.

• The respondents were foreign-national candidates admitted to postgraduate medical seats under the Sponsored/Foreign National Category in terms of AIIMS prospectus and Government of India policy.

• The prospectus and inter-ministerial communications specify that these seats involve no financial liability for AIIMS and that no stipend/emoluments will be paid.

• The candidates accepted admission under these terms but later sought stipend at par with Indian trainees, claiming equal pay for equal work.

Court’s Observations:

• The classification between Indian candidates and foreign-national/sponsored candidates is valid, as it is rooted in the admission mechanism, international obligations, and financial structure, not merely nationality.

• The “equal pay for equal work” argument was rejected because the comparison is impermissible when terms of engagement, mode of selection, and category of admission differ.

• Foreign-national seats are created through diplomatic channels and explicitly designated as no-financial-liability seats, making AIIMS’s denial of stipend consistent with policy.

• The Court held that candidates who knowingly applied under a category declaring “no stipend” cannot later challenge that condition.

• Since the policy itself is constitutionally valid, the doctrine of estoppel applies—candidates cannot accept admission benefits while disputing the binding conditions.

• Consequently, the Single Judge’s judgment was set aside, and AIIMS’s appeals were allowed.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Article 14, Constitution of India – Reasonable classification; equal protection of laws.

• Principles governing equal pay for equal work, including distinctions based on recruitment method, category of appointment, and financial obligations.

• Doctrine of estoppel – Candidates cannot approbate and reprobate when they accepted admission knowing the terms.

Case: AIIMS v. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav & Ors. (LPA 787/2013) & AIIMS v. Dr. Ajay Kumar Yadav & Ors. (LPA 788/2013)

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice Anil Kshetrapal & Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Date of Decision: 21 November 2025

Letters Patent Appeals: LPA 787/2013 & LPA 788/2013