Pay Verification Cell's Unilateral Reduction Of Salary Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Patna HC
Patna High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Satyavrat Verma quashed the Bihar Education Department's Pay Verification Cell's order that unilaterally reduced a university employee's salary and downgraded his designation. The Court held that such action without prior notice violated principles of natural justice and contradicted an earlier High Court ruling that mandated...
Patna High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Satyavrat Verma quashed the Bihar Education Department's Pay Verification Cell's order that unilaterally reduced a university employee's salary and downgraded his designation. The Court held that such action without prior notice violated principles of natural justice and contradicted an earlier High Court ruling that mandated specific procedural steps. The Court emphasized that the Pay Verification Cell's role is limited to auditing and advising, and it cannot independently amend decisions affecting employees' pay and status.
Background
Suray Deo Paswan, the petitioner, is a non-teaching employee at Magadh University. He was initially appointed as a Dresser in 1985 and later promoted to Dispenser in 2012. His pay, fixed at ₹49,600 as of January 1, 2016, was later scaled down by the Pay Verification Cell of Bihar's Education Department. Additionally, his designation was downgraded from Dispenser to Compounder. The petitioner contended that this action was taken without notice, consultation, or justification. He argued that such action violated principles of natural justice and an earlier ruling by the Patna High Court, which had explicitly restricted the Pay Verification Cell's powers.
Arguments
For the Petitioner, counsel Mr. Anil Singh argued that the Pay Verification Cell had overstepped its jurisdiction by unilaterally reducing the petitioner's pay and designation. He emphasized that the cell's actions contradicted a previous order from the High Court, which clearly mandated notice to the employee and University before any adverse decision on pay. The unilateral reduction, he argued, violated these principles, as the petitioner had never been given an opportunity to respond or present his case. Mr. Singh referenced the doctrine res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”), asserting that the Education Department's actions clearly violated judicial precedents and natural justice.
For Magadh University, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh argued that the University's Pay Fixation Committee had adhered to legal protocols, and the Pay Verification Cell lacked the authority to alter pay scales decided by the University. He contended that the cell's objections could only be advisory and should not have led to a unilateral alteration without further procedural compliance.
Court's Reasoning
Firstly, the court found that the Pay Verification Cell had acted unilaterally, without providing notice to the petitioner or the University. It stressed that any action resulting in adverse civil consequences requires a prior hearing. Consequently, the court held that the actions of the Pay Verification Cell violated principles of natural justice by depriving the petitioner of an opportunity to be heard.
Secondly, the court emphasized that its previous decision which had mandated specific procedural steps for the Pay Verification Cell, had been disregarded. The court reiterated that the cell could not amend or override decisions made by the University without following due process, including notice and the opportunity for affected parties to respond.
Thirdly, the court questioned the Education Department's undue haste in directing the Pay Verification Cell to finalize the pay reduction. The court noted that the Director's order seemed arbitrary and unjustified, especially since the delay in pay fixation was not caused by the petitioner but by the University's lack of response to the cell's objections. The court also highlighted that the jurisdiction of the Pay Verification Cell is limited. It is not empowered to independently amend or enforce decisions that affect employees' pay and status. Instead, its role is to audit and advise, leaving substantive decisions to the statutory Pay Fixation Committee of the University.
Finally, the court pointed out that the petitioner had been continuously employed at Magadh University for decades, and his pay had been properly fixed by the University's Committee. The court recognized that the reduction not only caused financial loss but also significant professional demotion. Thus, the court allowed the petition and concluded that the Education Department's directive and the Pay Verification Certificate issued were illegal. Both were quashed, and the case was remanded to the State authorities.
Decided on: 13-11-2024
Case No.: CWJC No. 16104 of 2024, Suray Deo Paswan v. The State of Bihar
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Singh
Counsel for the State: Mr. Kameshwar Pd. Gupta, GP 10, and Mr. Satya Vrat, AC to GP-10
Counsel for the University: Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 111