Retrospective seniority necessitates notional pay fixation at par with recruitment batch-mates to prevent service anomalies.

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

While his batch-mates joined training on May 1, 2010, the applicant was initially not selected due to an evaluation error in the written test

Following a re-evaluation of OMR sheets in 2011, the applicant was found to have scored above the cutoff, declared medically fit, and eventually joined service on January 2, 2012

On January 12, 2018, the respondents fixed his inter-se seniority correctly at Sl. No. 309 alongside his 2010 batch-mates; however, they refused to fix his pay notionally from the date his batch-mates joined, resulting in the applicant receiving lower pay than his juniors

The applicant’s representation dated December 9, 2024, seeking parity was rejected/returned by the respondents on August 19, 2025

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to notional pay fixation from the date his batch-mates joined (May 1, 2010) to ensure parity, given that his seniority was already backdated to that batch

2. Whether the denial of notional pay fixation, while granting retrospective seniority, constitutes an illegal and arbitrary anomaly

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

Principle established by the Delhi High Court in Director of Education and Anr. v. Smt. Krishna Kumari, which holds that once notional seniority is granted, the legal fiction of service must be given "full effect," including for the purposes of pay fixation and increments

Fundamental Rule (FR) 17(1)—which states pay begins from the date an officer assumes duties

Principle of parity for similarly situated employees as established in Vikas v. Delhi Police (OA 3318/2018)

The Tribunal observed that the delay in the applicant's appointment was not due to his own fault but resulted from the respondents' incorrect evaluation of written test results

The court reasoned that once the respondents assigned the applicant seniority at par with the 2010 batch, they implicitly accepted that he deserved equal treatment

The Tribunal found it contradictory to award the benefit of seniority while withholding the corresponding benefit of notional pay fixation, as this creates a service anomaly where an employee is "senior" for promotion but "junior" for remuneration

Connecting the facts to the Krishna Kumari precedent, the court held that the applicant must be treated as if he had earned increments and benefited from wage revisions since 2010 to avoid continuous financial loss throughout his career

It held that the applicant is entitled to notional pay fixation at par with his batch-mates effective from May 1, 2010

The court directed the respondents to calculate consequential benefits and arrears from the date of his actual joining (January 2, 2012) without interest

The respondents were ordered to comply with these directions within 90 days of receiving the order