Patna HC Sets Aside Pay Verification Certificate Issued 12 Years After Retirement, Orders Refund
Justice Ritesh Kumar held that the State's Pay Verification Cell could not slash a retired university employee's pay scale without notice, and directed refund of Rs 22,08,744 adjusted from his post-retirement dues.
The Patna High Court has quashed a pay verification certificate issued by the State Government's Pay Verification Cell that reduced the pay scale of a retired college employee and created a recovery demand of Rs 22,08,744 against him, more than a decade after he had superannuated. Justice Ritesh Kumar, sitting singly, allowed the writ petition filed by Pitamber Jha, who had retired as Head Assistant (Accounts) from R.N. College, Pandaul, District Madhubani, on 30 June 2010. The court found that the pay revision was carried out without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without giving him any opportunity to respond to the objections raised by the Pay Verification Cell. The court directed that the adjusted amount be refunded within three months.
The Dispute Before the Court
Pitamber Jha was appointed as Typist-cum-Assistant at R.N. College, Pandaul on 7 November 1968. When the college was taken over by the State of Bihar in 1977, his services were treated as permanent university employment. He was promoted to Head Assistant with effect from 1 January 2006 on the recommendation of the University Selection Committee, and his pay was fixed by the Statutory Pay Fixation Committee of Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga. Under that fixation, his basic pay as on 1 January 2006 stood at Rs 28,830 in the pay band of Rs 15,600–39,100 with grade pay of Rs 6,600.
After his retirement in June 2010, all pensionary benefits were paid to him in the pay scale of Rs 9,300–34,800 with grade pay of Rs 4,600. He filed an earlier writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 9939 of 2019, seeking payment of salary differences arising from ACP and MACP benefits. That petition was disposed of on 2 May 2019 with a direction to file a representation before the Registrar of L.N. Mithila University, after which the University was to make payment within twelve weeks.
When compliance did not follow, Jha filed a contempt petition, M.J.C. No. 5025 of 2019. That proceeding was disposed of with liberty to challenge the pay verification certificate that had been issued by the State Government's Pay Verification Cell during its pendency. Under that certificate, the petitioner's pay as on 1 July 2009 was fixed at Rs 9,300–34,800 with grade pay of Rs 4,600 — a significant reduction from the University's own fixation. On the basis of this certificate, the University adjusted Rs 22,08,744 as excess payment from the petitioner's post-retirement benefits.
Jha then filed the present writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 12043 of 2022, challenging the pay verification certificate and seeking restoration of the pay scale fixed by the University's Statutory Pay Fixation Committee, along with refund of the adjusted amount.
The Legal Contest
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr Shashi Bhushan Singh, pressed two principal arguments. First, the Pay Verification Cell had no legal authority to alter a pay scale already fixed by the Statutory Pay Fixation Committee, which is the competent body under the University statute. Second, the entire exercise was conducted without any notice to the petitioner, in violation of the principles of natural justice. He relied on the directions issued vide letter no. 1448 dated 24 July 2015 under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, which had been issued in terms of the order dated 15 January 2015 in C.W.J.C. No. 7636 of 2014 (Kedar Nath Pandey & Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.). That letter, as quoted in the judgment, stated that any amendment to a University order or any clarification or final decision in relation to such an order could only be taken by the University itself.
Counsel for the State, Mr Madhaw Pd. Yadaw, defended the certificate on the ground that the pay fixation had been done in accordance with the directions in C.W.J.C. No. 7636 of 2014 and in terms of a fresh fixation sent by the University itself in response to queries from the Pay Verification Cell. The State's position was that the University had sent a revised pay slip in January 2022, and the certificate was issued on the basis of that revised slip. Counsel also relied on an order dated 13 November 2024 in C.W.J.C. No. 16104 of 2024 (Suray Deo Paswan v. State of Bihar and Ors.), where a Single Judge had directed fresh consideration in light of the Kedar Nath Pandey directions.
Counsel for L.N. Mithila University, Mr Iqbal Asif Niazi, confirmed that the University had originally fixed the pay through its Statutory Pay Fixation Committee and had been making payments accordingly. It was only after the Pay Verification Cell raised objections that the University recalculated and sent a revised slip, on the basis of which the recovery demand arose.
How the Bench Reasoned
Justice Ritesh Kumar identified two independent grounds for setting aside the pay verification certificate.
The first was the absence of notice. The petitioner had retired on 30 June 2010. The pay revision that reduced his scale was carried out approximately twelve years after retirement, without any notice to him and without any opportunity to rebut the objections raised by the Pay Verification Cell. The court held that after retirement the master and servant relationship had come to an end, and the University was not justified in reducing the pay scale solely on the basis of State Government directions, without first notifying the petitioner.
The court drew on a coordinate bench judgment dated 3 December 2018 in C.W.J.C. No. 16458 of 2015 (Rajendra Patel and Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors.), which had held that the State Auditor has no jurisdiction in the matter of pay fixation of University employees, since a Statutory Pay Fixation Committee exists under the University statute for that purpose. That bench had further held that any decision taken by the Director, Higher Education after the superannuation of employees cannot be sustained because the master and servant relationship had ended.
The court also referred to its own order dated 30 April 2026 in C.W.J.C. No. 18201 of 2022 (Dinesh Chandra Mishra v. State of Bihar and Ors.), which had considered the Kedar Nath Pandey directions, the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported at 2015 (1) PLJR 261, the Supreme Court's decision in Civil Appeal No. 7115 of 2010 (Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and Ors.), and the Rajendra Patel judgment, before allowing the writ petition and declaring a recovery order illegal and without jurisdiction.
The second ground was jurisdictional. The court referred to an order dated 24 March 2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 65 of 2001 (The Patna University Employees Association & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.), where a Single Judge had recorded a statement from the Deputy Secretary, Higher Education, to the effect that “the power of pay fixation to the employees of the Universities lies with the pay fixation committee and department is not concerned in this matter.” The Single Judge in that case had held that this statement was conclusive and that the recommendations of the Statutory Pay Fixation Committee were required to be implemented in consonance with law, without any approval from the State Government being necessary.
On the procedural requirements that the State claimed to have followed, the court noted the directions in Kedar Nath Pandey as interpreted in the Suray Deo Paswan order: the State authorities may raise objections to a pay fixation done by the Statutory Pay Fixation Committee, but the University is then obliged to issue notice to the employee concerned, receive his response, and only thereafter can the Statutory Pay Fixation Committee make a revised fixation. None of that process had been followed in the petitioner's case before his pay scale was reduced and a recovery of Rs 22,08,744 was raised against him.
Outcome
Justice Ritesh Kumar set aside pay verification certificate no. 17012208002141 issued by the Pay Verification Cell of the State Government. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to the salary he was receiving prior to his retirement, on the basis of the pay fixation done by the University and annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The court further directed that if Rs 22,08,744 had already been adjusted from the petitioner's post-retirement benefits, the same shall be refunded within three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the order. The writ petition was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.