Delayed appointees are entitled to notional seniority and pay fixation from the date batchmates joined.

The three applicants, serving as Head Constable (Drivers) in the Delhi Police, participated in a recruitment process initiated in 2009.

While their batch-mates were permitted to join service on May 1, 2010, the applicants’ appointments were delayed.

Despite their seniority being fixed according to merit alongside their batch-mates, the respondents refused to grant them notional pay fixation from the date their juniors/batch-mates joined.

The applicants approached the Tribunal seeking to quash the Impugned Order dated January 2, 2026, and a PHQ Memo dated September 20, 2024, and prayed for notional appointment from May 1, 2010, for the purposes of pay fixation, NPS contributions, MACP, and promotion.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to notional pay fixation and service benefits from the date of appointment of their actual batch-mates (01.05.2010).

2. Whether the "legal fiction" of notional seniority must be extended to include pay fixation and eligibility for schemes like MACP.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle established by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Director of Education and Anr. v. Smt. Krishna Kumari [WP(C) No. 13987/2009], which held that once notional seniority is granted, the legal fiction must be given full effect, including for the purposes of pay fixation, increments, and benefits under career progression schemes.

It further relied on its own precedent in Rishikesh Meena v. Commissioner of Police and Anr. [OA No. 4738/2025], which mandated parity for candidates whose joining was delayed despite belonging to the same recruitment batch.

The Tribunal observed that the applicants were identically situated to the petitioner in the Rishikesh Meena case, as they were part of the same recruitment process.

Referring to the Krishna Kumari precedent, the Tribunal reasoned that since the applicants’ seniority had already been fixed based on their merit alongside their batch-mates, the respondents could not arbitrarily withhold the benefit of notional pay fixation.

The court noted that a delay in joining that is not attributable to the candidate should not result in the permanent loss of financial progression relative to their peers.

By applying the "full effect of legal fiction" doctrine, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants’ pay must be re-fixed as if they had joined in 2010, though actual monetary arrears would only accrue from their actual date of joining.

It quashed the impugned remarks/orders and directed the respondents to re-fix the applicants’ pay and allowances at par with their batch-mates on a notional basis effective from May 1, 2010.

The holding clarified that while the applicants are entitled to consequential benefits (including arrears and MACP eligibility) from the date of their actual joining based on this notional re-fixation, they are not entitled to interest on the arrears.

The respondents were directed to comply with the order within 90 days.