Grant of notional pay at par with batch-mates upon retrospective seniority fixations following delayed appointment.

The applicant applied for the post of Constable (Driver) in the Delhi Police in 2009 under the ST category.

While his batchmates joined in 2010, the applicant was initially not selected due to marks falling below the cutoff. However, following a re-evaluation of written test answer keys in 2011, it was discovered that the applicant had secured the requisite marks.

He subsequently qualified for the trade and medical tests and joined service on January 2, 2012.

Although the respondents correctly fixed his inter-se seniority at Sl. No. 458 alongside his 2010 batchmates on January 12, 2018, they failed to fix his pay notionally at par with them.

The respondent rejected his representation on December 23, 2025, citing FR 17(1), which states pay begins from the date an officer assumes duties.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to notional pay fixation at par with his batchmates from the date of their appointment (May 1, 2010) despite his actual joining being delayed due to administrative errors in evaluation

2. Whether the denial of notional pay fixation, while granting seniority, creates a legal anomaly

The Tribunal relied on the principle that if seniority is assigned along with batchmates, it implies the candidate deserves treatment at par with said batchmates in other service benefits.

It applied the precedent from Director of Education and Anr. v. Smt. Krishna Kumari (WP(C) No. 13987/2009), which held that once notional seniority is granted, that legal fiction must be given full effect for pay fixation and increments.

Additionally, it followed the findings in Vikas v. Delhi Police (OA No. 3318/2018), asserting that a delay in appointment caused by administrative factors (like document verification or re-evaluation) should not result in a continuous financial loss to the employee.

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s delayed appointment was not due to his own fault but resulted from a faulty evaluation process by the respondents, which was corrected only in 2011.

The court rejected the respondents' reliance on FR 17(1), noting that once the department accepted the applicant’s seniority from 2010 to correct the past error, they could not selectively withhold the financial consequences of that seniority.

Drawing from the Delhi High Court's reasoning in similar matters, the Tribunal emphasized that treating service from 2010 for seniority but only from 2012 for pay fixation creates an irrational anomaly.

The court held that the principle of parity applies because similarly situated persons in the same recruitment batch had already been granted such relief through prior judicial orders implemented by the department.

The respondents were directed to re-fix the applicant's pay and allowances on a notional basis and grant all consequential benefits (including arrears and MACP eligibility) from the date of his actual joining, without interest. Compliance was ordered within 90 days.