Pay Verification Cell Cannot Unilaterally Override University's Pay Fixation Of Employees: Patna HC

Background

Kanchan Sah was appointed to a Class-III post at S.S.V. College, Kahalgaon in April 2005. She was granted the benefit of 1st Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) effective from April 14, 2015. After an unblemished career, she retired in 2019 at 62 years. The university determined a gratuity amount of Rs.2,51,722. However, it only sanctioned 90% of the amount, and withheld 10% despite no pending proceedings against her.

Additionally, benefits of the Seventh Pay Revision became applicable to university employees from July 2016. Kanchan Sah submitted that this should have increased her retirement pay. However, she was paid according to the lower Sixth Pay Revision rates. Aggrieved by this, she filed the present writ petition.

While her case was pending, Kanchan Sah received arrears of 90% pension, gratuity, and leave encashment under the Seventh Pay Revision. However, several issues remained unresolved, including differences in salary arrears and the withholding of 10% of her benefits.

Complicating matters further, the Director of Higher Education issued a letter in July 2023 instructing the Pay Verification Cell to issue an amended Pay Slip. This retroactively reduced Kanchan Sah's pay scale; the university calculated that she had been overpaid by Rs.4,71,409 and initiated recovery proceedings.

Arguments

Kachan Sah argued that the pay scale of university employees was fixed by a statutory committee. She contended that the Pay Verification Cell only had the authority to raise objections but could not fix pay scales. She further referenced a 2015 clarification from the Education Department, which stated that the Pay Verification Cell could only raise objections and not unilaterally fix pay scales. Thus, she argued that the Director of Higher Education's letter dated July 2023, and the consequent Pay Slip were arbitrary and illegal.

Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, representing the State, countered that the Pay Verification Cell followed a 2014 notification from the Governor's Secretariat and correctly determined Kanchan Sah's pay. This notification stated that after December 20, 2000, clerical posts like Sorter, Library Clerk, Routine Clerk, etc., would be designated as Lower Division Clerk with a lower pay. Thus, he argued, that Kanchan Sah was overpaid, and the recovery proceedings are valid.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, citing Dr. Kedar Nath Pandey and Ors. v. The Magadh University, Bodhgaya. [Patna High Court, C.W.J.C. No. 7636 of 2014], the court held that objections from the Pay Verification Cell cannot unilaterally modify notifications issued by a university. It explained that such objections should be treated as audit objections; the university must notify the affected employees and seek their responses before reverting to the Pay Verification Cell. Thus, the court held that the final decision had to come from the university, and not the Pay Verification Cell, as it lacked jurisdiction in this regard.

Further, the court cited the Supreme Court's decision in State of Bihar. v. Sunny Prakash (CWJC No. 10870 of 2008). In that case, non-teaching university employees sought implementation of certain commitments made by the state government to their association. The Supreme Court directed the government to honor its undertaking. One of the demands was that certain non-teaching employees be granted a pay scale of Rs.4000-6000. The state complied, and accordingly issued notifications directing universities to fix the employees' pay scales. Based on these notifications, Kanchan Sah's College implemented the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 for these positions.

Thus, the court concluded that Kanchan Sah ought to be paid as per the state government notifications, and not the Pay Verification Cell. Consequently, it allowed the writ petition and set aside the July 2023 letter issued by the Director of Higher Education. Further, it directed both the state and university to ensure payment of all amounts due to Kanchan Sah based on the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000.

Decided on: 27-02-2025

Case No.: CWJC No.19531 of 2021 | Smt. Kanchan Sah v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saroj Kumar, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, AC to GP-20 for the State; Mr. Ashar Mustafa, Advocate for the University

Click Here To Read/Download The Order