Notional seniority and pay fixation accrue from batch joining date for employer-attributable appointment delays.

The applicant applied for the post of Driver in the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) under Post Code 65/2009

Although he was declared successful in the results published on 06.10.2010, his candidature was kept pending and subsequently rejected due to the verification of his Scheduled Caste (SC) certificate issued in Uttar Pradesh

The applicant challenged this in O.A. No. 434/2012, which the Tribunal allowed on 14.12.2012, directing the respondents to appoint him with consequential benefits, excluding back wages

Despite this, the applicant was only appointed on 21.10.2015, whereas general category candidates from the same batch joined in 2010

In 2018, seeking parity with the judgment in Subhash Chand Yadav v. GNCTD (O.A. No. 223/2014), the applicant requested notional seniority and pay fixation from 2010

The respondents rejected his representation via an order dated 31.07.2019, asserting that under DRTA Regulations, seniority is determined by the date of actual appointment

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to notional seniority and pay fixation from the date his batchmates (2010 batch) joined service, given that the delay in his appointment was attributable to the respondents

2. Whether the principles of parity established in Lalit Kumar v. MCD and Subhash Chand Yadav v. GNCTD are applicable to the applicant's circumstances

The respondents relied on the Delhi Road Transport Authority (DRTA) (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952, which stipulate that seniority is governed by the date of actual appointment

The Tribunal applied the judicial principle established in Lalit Kumar v. MCD (O.A. No. 1795/2011) and Subhash Chand Yadav v. GNCTD (O.A. No. 223/2014), which holds that if a delay in appointment is due to the wrongful action or inaction of the employer and results in litigation, the employee is entitled to notional seniority and pay fixation from the date their batchmates joined, to ensure they are not penalized for the employer's error

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s appointment was delayed by five years solely due to the respondents’ erroneous rejection of his SC certificate, a matter already resolved in the applicant’s favor in previous litigation (O.A. No. 434/2012)

The court noted that there was no fault on the part of the applicant; rather, the delay was entirely "attributable to inaction or wrongful action of the respondents"

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that seniority must only commence from the date of physical joining, reasoning that such a technical application of DRTA Regulations would be inequitable where the candidate was "compelled" into litigation to secure his rights

Following the precedent in Subhash Chand Yadav, the Tribunal found the applicant identically placed and entitled to the same relief of notional benefits to maintain parity with his recruitment batch

It held that the applicant is entitled to notional seniority based on his position in the 2010 merit list

The respondents were directed to grant notional pay fixation at par with his batchmates, along with other consequential benefits such as MACP and GPF contributions, within three months

No back wages were awarded, and no costs were imposed