Date of reporting for duty after appointment order is considered notional for seniority purposes if joining is delayed due to pendency of criminal case.

The appellant was appointed as a Teacher/Sikshan Sahayak via an order dated January 7, 2021, and was directed to report to the Government Secondary School in Baraniya

He reported for duty on January 8, 2021; however, the respondents refused to allow him to join because his affidavit disclosed a pending criminal case

The appellant filed a writ petition on January 21, 2021, seeking a direction to permit him to join duty

While the petition was pending, the respondents treated his situation as a "special case" and allowed him to join on June 9, 2021

Subsequently, the learned Single Judge dismissed his petition on November 13, 2025, ruling that he was ineligible to join between January and June 2021 and had not officially requested to have his reporting accepted during that window

1. Whether the appellant’s prompt reporting for duty on January 8, 2021, and subsequent legal action should entitle him to a deemed joining date despite the initial refusal by the authorities

2. Whether the period between the initial offer of appointment and the actual date of joining can be considered as notional service for the purposes of seniority

The Court applied the principles of service jurisprudence regarding "notional joining" and the determination of seniority based on the original merit list

It relied on the doctrine that if an employee is prevented from joining for reasons not attributable to their own delay or negligence—specifically when they seek immediate judicial recourse—the court may grant seniority benefits based on the original date of reporting

The court also applied the "no work, no pay" principle, denying financial benefits for the period the appellant did not actually serve while granting chronological seniority

The Court found that the appellant had acted with due diligence by reporting for duty on January 8, 2021, one day after his appointment order

It disagreed with the Single Judge’s finding that there was no record of the appellant seeking to enforce his reporting, noting that filing a writ petition within 14 days of the appointment order was "itself indicative" of his promptness

The Court reasoned that since the respondents eventually allowed the appellant to join notwithstanding the pending criminal case, the initial refusal was the sole barrier to his service

Therefore, equity demanded that the appellant be treated as having reported on the original date (January 8, 2021) to preserve his seniority according to the merit list, even though he was not entitled to back wages for the period he did not work

While he is not entitled to any financial benefits for the interim period, his service records must reflect January 8, 2021, as his notional joining date for the purpose of pulse-determining seniority in accordance with the merit-based select list. The Writ Appeal was disposed of accordingly