Notional seniority entitles employees to pay fixation and service benefits at par with recruitment batchmates.

The four applicants are Head Constable (Drivers) in the Delhi Police who participated in the 2009 recruitment process

While their batchmates and juniors were permitted to join service on 01.05.2010, the applicants’ appointments were delayed

The applicants sought notional seniority and pay fixation effective from 01.05.2010 to achieve parity with their batchmates for purposes of pay fixation, Next Personal Pension System (NPS) contributions, and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP)

They challenged the impugned remarks dated 17.12.2025, which summarily returned their representation without a speaking order

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the benefit of notional appointment and pay fixation from 01.05.2010, the date their batchmates/juniors joined service, for the purpose of consequential service benefits

2. Whether the action of the respondents in returning the applicants’ representation via impugned remarks dated 17.12.2025 without a speaking order is legally sustainable

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle of parity and the "legal fiction of seniority" established by the Delhi High Court in Director of Education and Anr. v. Smt. Krishna Kumari, WP(C) No. 13987/2009

The rule dictates that once notional seniority is granted, the fiction must be given full effect, including pay fixation, increments, and eligibility for financial upgradation schemes like MACP

The Tribunal further relied on its own precedent in Rishikesh Meena v. Commissioner of Police, OA No. 4738/2025, which extended these benefits to similarly situated candidates from the same recruitment batch

The Tribunal observed that the applicants were part of the same recruitment process as the applicant in the Rishikesh Meena case

It noted that the applicants’ seniority had been fixed as per their merit along with their batchmates, yet the respondents refused to accord them the benefit of notional pay fixation

Following the ratio in Smt. Krishna Kumari, the Tribunal reasoned that treating an employee as being in service from an earlier date for seniority (a legal fiction) necessitates that their pay be fixed as if they had earned increments and wage revisions during that period

Since the respondents' counsel did not dispute that the present case was identical to OA No. 4738/2025, the Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the established precedent

It quashed the impugned remarks dated 17.12.2025 and directed the respondents to re-fix the applicants' pay and allowances at par with their batchmates on a notional basis effective from 01.05.2010

The applicants are entitled to consequential benefits and arrears, calculated based on actual service from their date of joining

No interest was granted on arrears

The respondents were directed to comply with these orders within 90 days of receipt of the certified copy