Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13932
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A), Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
SUNIL KUMAR SON OF LATE SHRI SUNDER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI POLICE – Respondent
OA No. 465/2025|OA No.115/2025|OA No.462/2025|OA No.464/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Bajrang Vats
For the Respondents: Mr. Dilbagh Singh, Mr. R.K.Sharma, Ms. Ritu Mishra, Mr. B.C. Bhatt
The Tribunal mandated equal pay fixation and treatment for applicants based on notional seniority established among similarly situated individuals.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Original Applications - Notional Pay Fixation - The Tribunal allowed the Original Applications, quashed the impugned rejection orders relating to applicants' representations, and mandated re-fixation of pay and allowances at par with batch-mates on a notional basis. (Paras 1, 16)
(B) Equitable Treatment - Applicants contended that despite similar circumstances as their batch-mates, they were denied notional pay fixation; hence, the Tribunal directed equitable treatment in accordance with seniority, rejecting claims of individual-based actions against applicants. (Paras 4, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
Four applicants, head constables (drivers), applied for their rightful benefits after facing delays in appointments and fixation issues despite being treated similarly to batch-mates. They sought equitable reliefs in light of earlier cases decided by the Tribunal favorably regarding notional seniority.
Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that since the applicants were assigned seniority with their batch-mates, they must be entitled to equal pay and allowances as well, notwithstanding the earlier delays, thus ensuring just compensation in the spirit of equality before law.
Issues: The main questions focused on whether to allow equal treatment based on notional pay and seniority principles in light of previous case judgments which supported such claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal emphasized that merely assigned seniority dictates entitlement to pay benefits under the principle of equality and does not permit arbitrary refusal, illustrating that every candidate has a right to just treatment.
Result: All four OAs were allowed, the respondents were directed to comply with the reinstated notional pay and seniority benefits.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of cases and common grounds for relief. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of selection process and employment timeline. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments presented on equity for applicants' compensation rights. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's observations on legal principles and applicants' claims. (Para 8 , 9 , 12) |
| 5. conclusion and orders issued by the tribunal. (Para 15 , 16) |
ORDER
By Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) :-
The facts and issues in the captioned OAs are stated to be similar, the grounds urged on behalf of the parties are common and the reliefs sought by the applicants are same. In view of the background of such admitted position and with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the captioned OAs are being heard and decided together by the present common order. However, for the sake of convenience, OA No.115/2024 has been treated as a lead case and facts are being taken from the pleadings therein.
2. The factual matrix of the case as enumerated by the learned counsel for the applicant is that pursuant to an Advertisement inviting applications, the applicant being eligible, applied for the post of Constable (Driver), Male in the year 2009. He was subjected to various stages of selection process i.e. written test/trade test/interview, which he cleared successfully. Pursuant to the selection process, the batch-mates of the applicant were allowed to join the training on 01.05.2010, while the applicant could not obtain the cut-off marks under OBC category. The selected candidates joined the basic training in 2010.
3. Subsequently, the written results were revaluated and after revaluation, the applicant secured position in merit list under OBC category. The applicant after Trade Test and Medical Examination joined Delhi Police as Constable (Driver) on 02.01.2012 and joined the basic training (2012 batch).
3.A The factual matrix and the issues involved in OA No. 462/2025 are identical to those in OA No. 115/2024, except that the applicant in the present OA belongs to the ST category and did not find his name in the declaration of results in the first instance. Subsequently, upon revaluation, his name appeared as a successful candidate, and he joined service after completing the requisite formalities on 02.01.2012.
3.B The factual matrix pertaining to OA No. 464/2025 is identical to that in OA No. 115/2024, except that the applicant in the present OA belongs to the unreserved category. Although he was declared successful in the first instance when the results were published, he was not permitted to join service due to the verification of his driving licence. The respondents required additional time to re-verify the applicant’s driving licence and, consequently, the appointment letter was issued to him thereafter. The applicant subsequently joined the Delhi Police as a Driver on 02.01.2012.
3.C The factual matrix pertaining to is identical to that in OA No. 115/2024 as the applicant in the present OA belongs to OBC category and found his name in the successful candidates after revaluation.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant successfully completed the training and probation period of two years. On 12.01.2018, the respondents fixed the inter-se- seniority of the applicant along with his batch-mates, wherein the name of the applicant was correctly figured at Sl. No.21 along with his batch mates, however, his pay was not fixed notionally at par his batch-mates, resulting in applicant getting lesser pay than his juniors/batch mates, namely, Shri Yogendra Singh and Shri Rajeev Kumar. He further submitted that one similarly situated batch-mate, namely, Shri Suchender Kumar preferred OA No.3371/2018 before the Tribunal, seeking the similar relief. The said OA was allowed on 15.04.2023 with the following directions :-
“9. The facts of the case are not disputed. The applicant was selected to the post of Constable (Driver), on his own merit, after going through the open competitive p
