Notional Seniority Must Include Pay Fixation at Par With Batchmates for Service Benefits and Increments

The applicants applied for the post of Constable (Driver) in the Delhi Police recruitment of 2009

While their batch-mates joined in 2010, the applicants were initially not selected due to an error in the evaluation of written test answer keys

Following a re-evaluation of OMR sheets in 2011, the applicants were found eligible and finally joined service in January 2012

On January 12, 2018, the respondents fixed the inter-se-seniority, correctly placing the applicants at par with their 2010 batch-mates

However, the respondents refused to grant notional pay fixation from the date their batch-mates joined, leading to a pay anomaly where the applicants received lower pay than their juniors

The applicants' representations were rejected via impugned remarks and orders in 2024 and 2025

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to notional pay fixation and consequential benefits from the date their batch-mates/juniors joined (01.05.2010), given that their seniority was already backdated to that period

2. Whether the denial of notional pay benefits while granting seniority constitutes an arbitrary and illegal service anomaly

The Tribunal applied the principle that if seniority is granted notionally from a backdate, that legal fiction must be given full effect for pay fixation to avoid service anomalies

Statement on the doctrine derived from Director of Education v. Smt. Krishna Kumari (WP(C) No. 13987/2009), which held that notional seniority must include the benefit of increments and wage revisions as if the employee had joined on the earlier date

Vikas v. Commissioner of Police (O.A. No. 3318/2018), which allowed similar relief for the same recruitment batch, and the High Court decision in WP(C) No.8998/2021, which held that seniority and pay fixation cannot be treated differently for the same period

The Court reasoned that the delay in the applicants’ appointments was not due to their own fault but due to the respondents’ initial error in evaluating the written test

Since the respondents had already accepted the applicants' entitlement to seniority from 2010 by placing them in the 2018 seniority list alongside their original batch-mates, they could not selectively deny the financial benefits associated with that seniority

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' defense based on Fundamental Rule (FR) 17(1)—which states pay begins from the date of assuming duties—noting that an anomaly arises if service is counted from 2010 for seniority but only from 2012 for pay

Applying the "full effect of legal fiction" doctrine, the court held that once an appointment is related back for seniority, it must also be related back for notional pay fixation to ensure parity with batch-mates

The Tribunal directed the respondents to refix the applicants' pay and allowances at par with their batch-mates strictly on a notional basis from May 1, 2010; it further ordered the grant of all consequential benefits (including MACP and arrears) to be calculated from the date of their actual joining, ensuring parity with the beneficiaries of earlier orders