State Pay Verification Cell Cannot Override a University’s Statutory Pay Fixation.

The petitioner, a retired Storekeeper at Ramadhin College, Sheikhpura, was initially appointed in 1977.

Following the creation of Munger University, the University’s statutory pay-fixation committee fixed his pay; the judgment records that his basic pay was fixed at ₹68,800 as of 1 January 2016 and ₹76,500 as of 1 July 2019, and that his last pay was ₹78,800

After his retirement on 31 December 2020, the State Education Department’s Pay Verification Cell issued a certificate reducing his basic pay to ₹64,100 with effect from 1 January 2016, without notice to him.

He challenged the certificate and sought protection of the pay and pension fixed by the University.

1. Whether the State Education Department’s Pay Verification Cell could reduce the pay fixed by the University’s statutory pay-fixation committee.

2. Whether the Cell could reduce the petitioner’s pay after his retirement, without notice or an opportunity to respond.

The Court relied on Dr. Kedar Nath Pandey v. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 7636 of 2014), which held that the State Pay Verification Cell may raise an audit objection to a University’s pay fixation but cannot itself alter the fixation made by the University’s statutory committee.

It also relied on Surya Deo Paswan v. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 16104 of 2024), which directed that any State objection be referred to the University, with notice to the employee and consideration by the University’s statutory pay-fixation committee.

Further, Rajendra Patel v. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 16458 of 2015) was cited for the principles that the State Auditor lacks jurisdiction to fix University employees’ pay and that post-retirement action is impermissible after the master-servant relationship has ended.

The Court also applied the requirement of procedural fairness and notice before reducing the petitioner’s pay.

The petitioner’s pay had been fixed by the University’s statutory committee, whereas the Pay Verification Cell independently reduced it after his retirement.

Under the cited decisions, the Cell could raise an objection but could not substitute its own pay fixation for that of the University committee.

Any objection should have been referred to the University for consideration by its statutory committee after notice to the petitioner; no such process was followed.

The reduction was therefore beyond the Cell’s authority and procedurally unfair.

The writ petition was allowed.