"No Jurisdiction to Alter Pay": Patna HC Quashes Education Dept’s Revised Pay Slip, Orders Full Dues with Interest to Retired Employee
Isabella Mariam
The Patna High Court set aside a modified pay slip issued by the Pay Verification Cell of the Education Department, Government of Bihar, which reduced the pay fixation of a retired non-teaching employee of T.M. Bhagalpur University. The Single Bench of Justice Harish Kumar stated, “the impugned order as contained in letter no. 2792 dated 22.07.2023, as also the consequential verified pay slip issued by the Pay Verification Cell is unsustainable and is hereby set aside.”
The petitioner, Smt. Kanchan Sah, was appointed on compassionate grounds following the death of her husband, who was a University Professor and Head of the Department of Botany at S.S.V. College, Kahalgaon under T.M. Bhagalpur University (TMB University). Her appointment to a Class-III post was made pursuant to Office Order No. 63 of 2005 dated 14.04.2005 in the initial pay scale of Rs.1200-1800/-. Subsequently, her pay scale was revised under the Fifth Pay Revision Commission to Rs.4000-6000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.2400, and later to Rs.5200-20200 under the Sixth Pay Revision Commission with effect from 01.01.2006. Vide Office Order No. 366/2015, the petitioner was granted the benefit of 1st Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) with effect from 14.04.2015. However, the financial benefit of the MACP was not disbursed to her.
The petitioner retired on 31.01.2019 at the age of 62 years. The University sanctioned 90% of her pension along with applicable dearness relief from February 2019 and 90% gratuity amounting to Rs.2,51,722/- through Letter No. 6823 dated 30.01.2019. Despite no departmental or criminal proceedings pending against her, 10% of her pension and gratuity remained withheld.
She contended that she was entitled to full pensionary and post-retirement benefits and sought revision of pension, gratuity, and leave encashment based on the fixation of her pay under the 7th Pay Revision Commission, which was made applicable to non-teaching staff from July 2016. The petitioner stated her salary should have been fixed at Rs.40,400/- from July 2016 and Rs.48,672/- at the time of retirement in January 2019, but she was instead paid Rs.38,647/- under the 6th PRC.
During the pendency of the petition, she received arrears for 90% pension and gratuity under the 7th PRC and was paid the balance 90% leave encashment. However, the following grievances remained unresolved:
(i) Difference of arrear of salary in 6th PRC to the tune of Rs.2,14,234/-. (ii) Difference of pay by allowing benefit of 1st MACP w.e.f. 20.08.2015 to 31.01.2019. (iii) Fixation of pay in 7th PRC and difference of arrear of salary thereto for the period w.e.f. July 2016 until January 2019 to the tune of Rs.3,54,203/-. (iv) Revision of pension, gratuity and leave encashment amount in 7th PRC and difference of amount to the extent of 100 per cent.
Subsequently, she learned that the Director of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, through Letter No. 2792 dated 22.07.2023, directed the Incharge of the Pay Verification Cell to issue an amended verified pay slip based on information provided through an online portal. This directive had approval from the Additional Chief Secretary of the Education Department. In compliance, a modified pay slip was issued fixing her pay at Rs.3050-4500/- as of 20.08.2005 and Rs.30,200/- as of 31.01.2019. Based on this slip, the University calculated that Rs.4,71,409/- had been paid to the petitioner in excess and initiated steps to recover this sum.
Aggrieved, she filed an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 1 of 2024) challenging both the letter and the revised pay slip. This Court allowed the application on 28.03.2024 and granted the respondents liberty to respond.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that pay fixation for University employees was conducted by a Statutory Committee, and that the Education Department’s Pay Verification Cell could not alter the pay fixation unilaterally. Reference was made to Letter No. 586 dated 19.04.2006, issued by the Director, Human Resources Development Department, and Letter No. 1448 dated 24.07.2015, from the Joint Secretary, Education Department, which recorded that the Pay Verification Cell could only raise objections and not fix pay scales.
It was further submitted that pursuant to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in State of Bihar & Anr. v. Sunny Prakash & Ors. [(2013) 3 SCC 559], the State issued Notification No. 1163 dated 20.06.2014 and Notification No. 1192 dated 23.06.2024, directing Universities to grant ACP/MACP benefits. TMB University implemented this through Office Order No. 211/2014 dated 14.07.2014, fixing the petitioner’s pay at Rs.4000-6000/- w.e.f. 01.04.1997 for equivalent posts. She was also granted 1st MACP with effect from 14.04.2015 through an order dated 08.09.2015.
The State’s counsel submitted that the Pay Verification Cell, after the petitioner’s retirement, examined the admissibility of her pay scale and fixed her pay at Rs.3050/- as on 20.08.2005 and Rs.30,200/- as on 31.01.2019, based on Notification No. 429 dated 04.03.2014 issued by the Governor’s Secretariat. This notification re-designated clerical posts such as Sorter, Library Clerk, and Routine Clerk as Lower Division Clerk with a corresponding pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/-.
The Court examined these submissions and stated, “the objection of the Pay Verification Cell cannot have the effect of annulling any notifications issued by the University, unilaterally, nor can such objection have the effect of modifying the previous notification issued in favour of the employees.” The Court further recorded, “the final notification and amendment or corrigendum or clarification of the previous decision has to be taken by the University because Pay Verification Cell has no jurisdiction in this regard.”
Referring to the earlier judgment in Dr. Kedar Nath Pandey & Ors. v. Magadh University & Ors. [2015 (1) PLJR 574], the Court stated that objections from the Pay Verification Cell should be treated as audit objections, for which the University must issue notices to the affected employees, seek their responses, and then revert to the Pay Verification Cell.
Regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunny Prakash, the Court observed that the State was directed to implement its commitment given on 18.07.2007, which included granting the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- to posts such as Library Assistant, Sorter, Routine Clerk, and Correspondence Clerk. The Court recorded, “the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunny Prakash (supra) is binding on the University as well State and in compliance with the aforesaid decision the respondent State also issued notification no. 1163 dated 20.06.2014 and notification no. 1192 dated 23.06.2024.”
The Court stated that TMB University, by Office Order No. 211/2014, implemented the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- w.e.f. 01.04.1997 for certain posts, and it was “admitted position that the pay of the petitioner was fixed by the University by allowing the benefit of 1st MACP w.e.f. 14.04.2015 vide order dated 08.09.2015.”
Reference was also made to a similar case, Indranath Jha v. State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 4722 of 2020), where the Court directed adherence to pay fixation by the Statutory Committee of the University and the payment of dues accordingly.
The Court stated, “In view of the discussions made hereinabove and the position obtaining in law, this Court finds that the impugned order as contained in letter no. 2792 dated 22.07.2023, as also the consequential verified pay slip issued by the Pay Verification Cell is unsustainable and is hereby set aside.”
It further directed, “The writ petition stands allowed with a direction to the respondent State as well as University to ensure payment of all the admissible amount treating the petitioner to be appointed in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/-, preferably within a period of three months from today.”
On delay in disbursal, the Court recorded, “any delay in disbursing the admissible monetary benefit shall entail the petitioner to get 6% interest over the due amount.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For Petitioner: Shivendra Kishore Senior Advocate, Saroj Kumar Advocate
For Respondents : Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate for the State, Ashar Mustafa, Advocate for the University
Case Title: Smt. Kanchan Sah v. The State of Bihar and Others
Case No: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19531 of 2021
Bench: Justice Harish Kumar
[Read/Download order]
