Notional seniority entails corresponding notional pay fixation and consequential service benefits from the deemed date of appointment.

The applicant applied for the post of Constable (Driver) in the Delhi Police pursuant to a 2009 advertisement

He was initially not selected; however, his batchmates joined training on May 1, 2010

Following a re-evaluation of the written test in 2011, the applicant was found to have secured the required cut-off marks, subsequently qualified the trade and medical tests, and joined service on January 2, 2012

On January 12, 2018, the respondents fixed the applicant’s inter-se-seniority at Sl. No. 85, correctly placing him with his 2009 batchmates

Despite this, the respondents refused to fix his pay notionally from May 1, 2010, leading to a pay disparity between the applicant and his juniors/batchmates

The applicant’s representation seeking parity with similarly situated personnel was returned by the respondents on December 11, 2025, without a speaking order

Whether the applicant is entitled to notional pay fixation from the date his batchmates joined (May 1, 2010) to ensure parity, given that his seniority was already backdated to the 2009 recruitment

Whether the denial of notional pay fixation while granting seniority constitutes an arbitrary anomaly in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

Rule 22 of the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, which dictates that seniority is determined by merit in the entrance examination regardless of the date of joining

The principle established by the Delhi High Court in Director of Education and Anr. Vs. Smt. Krishna Kumari, which holds that once notional seniority is granted, the legal fiction of service must be given full effect for the purposes of pay fixation, increments, and wage revisions

The Tribunal also adhered to its own precedent in Vikas v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (OA No. 3371/2018), affirming that benefits like seniority and notional pay cannot be decoupled when the delay in appointment is administrative and not the fault of the candidate

The Tribunal observed that the delay in the applicant’s appointment (from 2010 to 2012) resulted solely from the respondents' need to re-evaluate OMR sheets due to incorrect answer keys

The court reasoned that since the respondents had already assigned the applicant seniority along with his 2009 batchmates, they had effectively accepted that he deserved treatment at par with them

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' reliance on FR 17(1)—which suggests pay begins only upon assumption of duties—noting that an anomaly arises if service is counted from 2010 for seniority but only from 2012 for pay fixation

By applying the " Krishna Kumari" doctrine, the court determined that the loss of three years of service for pay purposes was an unjustifiable suffering for the applicant, and the legal fiction of his 2010 appointment must be extended to his pay scale on a notional basis to maintain consistency with his seniority

It directed the respondents to re-fix the applicant's pay and allowances at par with his batchmates strictly on a notional basis effective from May 1, 2010

The court held that the applicant is entitled to all consequential benefits, including monetary arrears calculated from his actual date of joining, and the counting of notional service toward the 10-year requirement for MACP benefits

Furthermore, the respondents were directed to grant NPS contributions for the notional service period

Compliance was ordered within 90 days, without interest on arrears