Notional seniority entitles employees to consequential benefits and MACP from the date of retrospective appointment.

The applicant applied for the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police in 1995 but was wrongfully denied appointment under the OBC category while his batchmates joined on 15.07.1996

Following litigation before the Tribunal and the High Court of Delhi, he was appointed in 1999

While his seniority was initially fixed at par with the 1996 batch, the respondents issued a Corrigendum on 07.12.2011 to unilaterally refix his seniority from his actual date of joining in 1999

This Corrigendum was subsequently quashed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1022/2013, and the respondents restored the applicant’s seniority on 06.06.2019

Despite this restoration, the respondents rejected the applicant's claim for notional pay fixation and MACP benefits on 21.01.2022, leading to the current application

1. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation and laches since the applicant sought MACP benefits dating back to 2006 and 2016

2. Whether an employee whose seniority has been restored notionally to a retrospective date is entitled to consequential service benefits, including notional pay fixation and MACP components

The Tribunal applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India (1995) and Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008), which establish that matters of pay fixation and pension constitute a "continuing wrong" and fall under the rare exception to the strict rule of limitation

The Tribunal further relied on the doctrine of "Legal Fiction" as discussed by the Delhi High Court in Director of Education v. Smt. Krishna Kumari (2009) and the Tribunal’s own precedent in Rajesh Kumar Ors. v. GNCTD (2026), holding that once notional seniority is recognized, it must be given its full logical effect regarding consequential benefits

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' plea of limitation, noting that pay fixation is a recurring cause of action

On merits, the Tribunal found that the applicant’s delayed appointment was due to administrative/litigation delays not attributable to him

Since the respondents had already restored his seniority to 15.07.1996 via the compliance order dated 06.06.2019, the Tribunal reasoned that withholding notional pay fixation and MACP benefits would be arbitrary

The Bench emphasized that the "legal fiction" of retrospective seniority must be carried to its logical conclusion; therefore, the applicant must be treated at par with his 1996 batchmates for all career advancement steps, including the calculation of the 10 and 20-year periods required for MACP from the notional date of 1996

The Tribunal directed the respondents to: (i) grant the applicant notional pay fixation and reckon service from 1996 for eligibility for future promotions; and (ii) grant the 1st MACP w.e.f. 15.07.2006 and the 2nd MACP w.e.f. 15.07.2016 with all consequential benefits. The respondents were ordered to complete the exercise within 90 days