Notional pay fixation allowed from the date of junior's joining due to re-evaluation, despite later actual appointment.

The applicant, Dinesh Chand Meena, applied for recruitment as a temporary Constable (Driver) Male in Delhi Police in 2009.

He initially failed to secure selection due to not meeting the cut-off marks in the ST category.

However, after a re-evaluation of the written test in 2011, he secured a position in the merit list and subsequently joined the Delhi Police on January 2, 2012, as part of the 2012 batch.

His batch-mates from the 2009 examination had joined training on May 1, 2010.

The applicant's inter-se-seniority was fixed along with his batch-mates, with his name at Sl. No. 479, on January 12, 2018.

However, his pay was not notionally fixed at par with his batch-mates, leading to him receiving lesser pay.

Another Constable (Driver), Mukesh Kumar, who joined training with the applicant on January 2, 2012, was granted notional pay fixation from May 1, 2010, at par with the 2009 batch through an order dated April 10, 2017.

Similarly situated persons, such as Shri Vikas, had their OAs allowed (e.g., OA No. 3371/2018 on April 15, 2023) granting notional pay fixation.

The applicant preferred a representation on December 27, 2024, requesting similar notional pay fixation and consequential benefits, but it was returned by the respondent on June 13, 2025.

The respondents acknowledged that the applicant was initially not selected but was later chosen after a re-evaluation of OMR sheets due to wrongly evaluated questions, and his seniority was fixed based on marks under Rule-22 of the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules.

They relied on FR 17(1) to argue that the applicant was only entitled to pay from his actual joining date, January 2, 2012.

Whether the rejection and return of the applicant's representation for notional pay fixation, based on seniority accorded at par with his batch-mates from the 2009 recruitment drive, is illegal, arbitrary, or in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Whether the applicant is entitled to notional pay fixation from May 1, 2010 (the joining date of his batch-mates/juniors) and other consequential benefits, including MACP and NPS contributions, given that his seniority was re-fixed from that period.

The court applied the principle that once notional seniority is granted, the fiction of earlier service must be given its full effect, including for pay fixation, increments, and benefits from wage revisions, as established in Director of Education and Anr. Vs. Smt. Krishna Kumari, WP(C) No. 13987/2009.

It also considered the principle that an anomaly arises when seniority is treated from an earlier date but pay fixation is only from the actual joining date.

The Central Administrative Tribunal's order in OA No. 3371/2018 (Shri Vikas) dated April 15, 2023, which allowed notional pay fixation for similarly situated persons, was also relied upon.

The court further referenced FR 17(1), which states an officer draws pay and allowances from the date they assume duties, although it implicitly distinguished or limited its application in this context of notional seniority.

The Tribunal found that the core facts of the case were undisputed: the applicant participated in the 2009 recruitment and was eventually selected after re-evaluation, joining on January 2, 2012, while his batch-mates joined on May 1, 2010.

Crucially, the respondents had already fixed the applicant's inter-se-seniority at par with his batch-mates from the 2009 examination, including those who joined in 2010.

The Tribunal reasoned that refusing notional pay fixation despite granting seniority creates an anomaly, as the service period is recognized for seniority but not for economic benefits.

This position was deemed inconsistent with the principle established in *Smt. Krishna Kumari*, where the High Court held that once notional seniority is granted, pay fixation must also reflect that earlier date.

The Tribunal further noted that similar relief had been granted to other similarly situated individuals, including Constable (Driver) Mukesh Kumar and applicants in OA No. 3371/2018.

The reliance by the respondents on FR 17(1) was implicitly found to be inapplicable in the context of rectifying an anomaly arising from delayed appointment to a selection process that predates the actual joining date, especially when seniority has already been assigned retrospectively.

The Tribunal therefore concluded that the applicant's claim was squarely covered by prior judgments and orders extending such notional benefits.

The impugned remarks dated June 13, 2025, returning the applicant's representation, and the impugned order dated September 20, 2024, were quashed and set aside.

The court directed the respondents to re-fix the applicant's pay and allowances at par with his batch-mates on a strictly notional basis.

This fixation will entitle the applicant to all consequential benefits, including arrears/monetary benefits, calculated from the date of his actual joining service, on par with his batch-mates/juniors and beneficiaries of office orders dated August 21, 2023, and September 23, 2024.

The applicant is also entitled to MACP from May 1, 2020 (instead of February 1, 2022) by counting notional service towards the 10 years' service requirement, and NPS contributions for the notional service period, along with differences after pay re-fixation.

No interest was awarded on the payment of arrears.

The directions are to be complied with within 90 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order.