Notional seniority entails the right to notional pay fixation at par with recruitment batchmates.

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

While his batch-mates joined training on 01.05.2010, the applicant was initially not selected.

In 2011, the respondents re-evaluated the written test results due to incorrect evaluation of OMR sheets.

Following re-evaluation, the applicant secured merit, was declared fit, and joined service on 02.01.2012.

On 12.01.2018, the respondents fixed the applicant’s seniority at Sl. No. 391, placing him with his original 2010 batch-mates.

However, his pay was not fixed notionally at par with said batch-mates, leading to him receiving lower pay than his juniors.

The applicant’s representation dated 19.11.2025 for notional pay fixation was rejected via remarks dated 30.12.2025.

Whether the applicant is entitled to notional pay fixation from 01.05.2010 (the date his batch-mates/juniors joined) to maintain parity, despite his actual joining being delayed to 02.01.2012 due to administrative error in result evaluation.

Whether the granting of seniority from an earlier date necessitates the legal fiction of notional pay fixation for that period.

The court primarily applied Rule 22 of the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, which stipulates that seniority is determined by merit in the entrance examination regardless of the date of joining.

It considered Fundamental Rule (FR) 17(1), which generally mandates that pay and allowances begin from the date an officer assumes duties.

the principle established in Director of Education and Anr. v. Smt. Krishna Kumari (WP(C) No. 13987/2009), holding that once notional seniority is granted, that fiction must be given full effect for pay fixation purposes.

the precedent in Vikas v. Commissioner of Police (OA No. 3318/2018), which allowed notional pay fixation for similarly situated candidates of the same 2009 recruitment batch.

The court reasoned that the delay in the applicant's appointment was not attributable to him but was a result of the respondents' own error in evaluating written test papers.

Since the respondents had already assigned the applicant seniority along with his 2010 batch-mates, they effectively accepted that he deserved treatment at par with them.

The Tribunal held that it is logically inconsistent to grant the benefit of seniority while withholding the benefit of notional pay fixation, as this creates a permanent salary anomaly where a senior officer earns less than their juniors.

While the respondents argued that FR 17(1) prohibits pay before the assumption of duty, the court clarified that this rule does not bar notional fixation for the purpose of protecting pay parity; actual financial arrears would only accrue from the date of joining.

It held that the applicant is entitled to have his pay and allowances re-fixed at par with his batch-mates/juniors strictly on a notional basis from 01.05.2010.

The court directed that the applicant be granted all consequential benefits and actual monetary arrears from the date of his actual joining (02.01.2012).

No interest was awarded on the arrears, and the respondents were directed to comply within 90 days.