Post-Retirement Pay Reduction and Recovery Without Notice or Statutory Jurisdiction Is Violative of Natural Justice

The petitioner was appointed as a Typist-cum-Assistant in 1968 at R.N. College, Pandaul, which was taken over by the State in 1977

He was promoted to Head Assistant in 2006, and his pay was fixed by the Statutory Pay Fixation Committee of L.N. Mithila University. He superannuated on 30.06.2010

Twelve years post-retirement, the Pay Verification Cell (PVC) of the State Government slashed his pay scale and declared a recovery of Rs. 22,08,744/- on the grounds that the University had fixed his pay too high

The petitioner challenged this downward revision and recovery, noting that no notice or opportunity to be heard was provided

The court relied on the precedent in Kedar Nath Pandey v. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 7636/2014), which held that pay revision without adherence to natural justice is void

It applied the principle from Patna University Employees Association v. State of Bihar stating that the power of pay fixation lies with the Statutory Committee, not the State Department

Regarding recovery, the court applied the "Rafiq Masih" principles (State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [2015 (1) PLJR 261]), which prohibit recovery from retired employees or where the recovery is sought after five years of the mistake

It also cited Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, affirming that if excess payment was not due to the employee's fraud, it cannot be recovered

The court reasoned that the relationship of master and servant ended upon the petitioner’s retirement in 2010, making the 2022 pay reduction legally unsustainable

It observed that the University and State failed to provide the petitioner with any notice, violating the principles of natural justice and the State's own directives (Letter No. 1448), which mandate that final decisions regarding pay must reside with the University, not the PVC

The court found that the State Auditor or PVC cannot override the Statutory Pay Fixation Committee’s decision, especially after such a prolonged delay. Applying the Rafiq Masih doctrine, the court held that recovering over 22 lakhs from a retired non-teaching employee after 11-12 years is "illegal and without jurisdiction"

The court held that the petitioner is entitled to the pay scale fixed by the University prior to his retirement. The court directed the respondents to refund the adjusted/recovered amount of Rs. 22,08,744/- to the petitioner within three months of the order