Patna HC: Pay Verification Cell Cannot Unilaterally change University Employee’s Salary and Designation

A single-judge bench of Justice Satyavrat Verma quashed the Bihar Education Department’s Pay Verification Cell’s decision to reduce the salary and downgrade the designation of a university employee. The court ruled that this action, taken without prior notice, violated principles of natural justice and contradicted a previous High Court ruling, which had set specific procedural guidelines. The court emphasized that the role of the Pay Verification Cell is limited to auditing and advising, and it cannot independently alter decisions regarding employees’ pay and status.

Background:

Suray Deo Paswan, a non-teaching employee at Magadh University, filed a petition in the Patna High Court after his salary and designation were unilaterally changed by the Pay Verification Cell of the Bihar Education Department. Paswan had worked at Magadh University since 1985 and was promoted to the position of Dispenser in 2012. His salary was fixed at ₹49,600 in January 2016. However, the Pay Verification Cell reduced his salary and downgraded his position to Compounder without providing prior notice or consultation, which he argued violated his rights to natural justice.

Paswan contended that his salary reduction and designation downgrade were unlawful because the Pay Verification Cell lacked the authority to make such decisions independently. Moreover, he argued that the Pay Verification Cell’s action disregarded a prior ruling from the Patna High Court, which had specifically outlined the procedures that must be followed when making such decisions.

Legal Context and the Arguments:

The case revolved around whether the Pay Verification Cell had the authority to reduce an employee’s pay and downgrade their position without following proper procedural safeguards. The petitioner’s lawyer, Mr. Anil Singh, argued that the Pay Verification Cell had overstepped its bounds by acting unilaterally, without giving Paswan a chance to respond or be heard. He cited an earlier decision by the Patna High Court, which had set guidelines that required notice and a hearing before any adverse action could be taken.

The University’s lawyer, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, contended that the Pay Fixation Committee of the university had followed the correct legal procedures and that the Pay Verification Cell’s role was merely advisory. In other words, the cell could make recommendations but could not unilaterally alter the pay scales or employee designations.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Violation of Natural Justice:
   The court’s first and most important point was that any action that affects an employee’s pay and designation must be preceded by a fair hearing. The reduction of salary and demotion from Dispenser to Compounder was a decision that had serious consequences for the petitioner, both financially and professionally. The court held that Paswan was entitled to be informed of the proposed changes and given a chance to present his case. This is a fundamental principle of natural justice, which ensures that no one is punished or adversely affected without being given an opportunity to defend themselves.
2. Non-Compliance with Prior Court Ruling:
   The court also emphasized that it had previously issued an order that set specific guidelines for the Pay Verification Cell’s actions. In that ruling, the court had made it clear that the cell could not unilaterally change decisions made by the university regarding pay and designation. The Pay Verification Cell’s role was only to audit and advise, not to enforce its decisions without consulting the university or the employee. By ignoring this earlier ruling, the cell had acted outside its legal limits.
3. Unjustified Haste:
   The court pointed out that the Education Department had acted with undue haste in ordering the Pay Verification Cell to finalize the salary reduction. The delay in fixing the salary was attributed to the university’s failure to respond to the objections raised by the Pay Verification Cell, not to any fault of the petitioner. The court found that the Education Department’s actions seemed arbitrary and unjustified, especially given the procedural requirements that were ignored.
4. Limited Role of the Pay Verification Cell:
   The court made it clear that the Pay Verification Cell’s role was purely advisory and that it had no power to independently amend decisions made by the university regarding employee pay or status. The Cell was supposed to provide advice on pay fixation, but it could not unilaterally alter the pay scales or downgrades that had been legally set by the university’s Pay Fixation Committee.
5. Impact on the Petitioner:
   The court also considered the fact that the petitioner had been employed at Magadh University for decades, with his salary fixed according to university protocols. The pay reduction and demotion were seen as not just a financial blow but also a professional setback for the petitioner. The court found that such actions, without the opportunity for a fair hearing, were unjust.

Court’s Decision:

The court ruled in favor of Suray Deo Paswan, quashing the Bihar Education Department’s directive and the Pay Verification Cell’s certificate that had reduced his pay and downgraded his position. The court held that these actions were illegal because they violated principles of natural justice, failed to follow proper procedure, and went beyond the authority granted to the Pay Verification Cell.

The case was remanded to the state authorities, meaning the authorities must reconsider Paswan’s case in light of the court’s decision and follow the correct procedures. This could involve providing the petitioner with the opportunity to present his case, reconsidering the pay reduction, and possibly reversing the decision.

Conclusion:

The Patna High Court’s judgment underscores the importance of fair process and procedural fairness in decisions that affect an employee’s pay and career. The court reinforced that no action that negatively impacts an individual can be taken without providing them a fair chance to be heard. It also clarified that the Pay Verification Cell has a limited role, and its recommendations cannot override decisions made by the University’s Pay Fixation Committee. The ruling highlights the importance of respecting judicial precedents and ensuring that all affected parties are properly consulted before any adverse actions are taken.