Retrospective seniority entitles employees to notional pay fixation at par with batch-mates from the date of deemed appointment.

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

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

Following a re-evaluation of the written test results in 2011—which rectified errors in the original evaluation—the applicant was found to have met the cutoff

He was appointed and joined service on 27.12.2012

Although the respondents fixed his inter-se-seniority at par with his 2010 batch-mates in 2018, they refused to grant him notional pay fixation, resulting in lower pay compared to his juniors

The applicant sought parity based on the Tribunal’s decision in Vikas v. Delhi Police (OA No. 3318/2018), but his representation was rejected via impugned remarks dated 30.12.2025

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to notional pay fixation and consequential benefits at par with his batch-mates from the 2009 recruitment cycle who joined in 2010

2. Whether the denial of notional pay fixation is sustainable once the respondents have already granted the applicant seniority at par with the 2010 batch

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

principle established by the Delhi High Court in Director of Education v. Smt. Krishna Kumari, holding that once notional seniority is granted, the legal fiction must be given full effect for pay fixation and increments

FR 17(1), which generally stipulates that pay begins from the date duties are assumed, but interpreted it in light of the "notional fixation" doctrine for delayed appointments due to administrative errors

The Tribunal observed that the delay in the applicant's appointment was not due to his fault but resulted from the respondents' error in evaluating the written test

The respondents had already corrected this by assigning the applicant seniority at par with the 2010 batch

The Tribunal reasoned that it is legally inconsistent to grant seniority (recognizing the applicant’s right to have been appointed earlier) while denying the financial fiction of notional pay

By applying the ratio in Smt. Krishna Kumari, the Tribunal held that an anomaly arises if service is treated as starting in 2010 for seniority but only in 2012 for pay fixation

Therefore, the pay must be fixed notionally from the date the applicant’s juniors joined to ensure he does not suffer a continuous loss throughout his career

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

The respondents were directed to grant all consequential benefits and arrears, calculated from the actual date of joining (27.12.2012) based on said notional fixation

The court clarified that no interest shall be payable on arrears and ordered compliance within 90 days