A. K. Sikri ( 1 ) RULE. SINCE short question is involved, with consent of the parties the matter is takenup and finally disposed of today. ( 2 ) PETITIONER, a daily wager worked for a few months in the years 1984 -1987when his services were terminated on 13/10/1987. ( 3 ) IN another writ petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 2692 of 1986 seekingregularisation of service by daily wagers working in Municipal Corporation ofdelhi (hereinafter referred to as MCD, for short), this Court vide order dated 1 7/12/1987 directed respondent-MCD to accomodate as many daily wagers asit can throughout the year and prepare a list of such daily wage workers accordingto their length of service. In order to facilitate preparation of this list certain directionswere given in the said order. Direction No. 1 reads as under: "the respondents shall prepare a joint seniority list of all these categories ofworkers/beldars. Their seniority would be determined on the basis of thedates of their initial appointment. Their length of service would be counted inthe manner that if the worker even has been employed for four months or fivemonths in a year, and he has worked every year for the said period withoutbreak. If the initial date of appointment of some workers is the same, then theirinter se seniority would be according to the age. " ( 4 ) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition stating that although he was initiallyappointed in the year 1984, the seniority list prepared by the respondent MCD is inrespect of the year 1987. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents it is notdisputed that the petitioner was initially appointed w. e. f. 10/07/1984. As per thecounter-affidavit he worked from 10/07/1984 to 13/10/1987 in thefollowing manner: YEAR WORKING DAYS1984 110 days1985 127 days1986 1561/2 days1987 134 daysit is however submitted by the respondent that as the petitioner did not complete240 days of continuous service in each year total length of service of the petitionerwas taken into consideration and his name was put in the list of 1987 as his serviceswere terminated in that year. ( 5 ) THE approach of the respondent in preparing the list including the name ofthe petitioner is not according to the terms of Direction No. 1 as it categoricallymandates that the seniority lists of daily wagers would be taken on the basis of datesof their initial appointment. ( 5 ) THE approach of the respondent in preparing the list including the name ofthe petitioner is not according to the terms of Direction No. 1 as it categoricallymandates that the seniority lists of daily wagers would be taken on the basis of datesof their initial appointment. Court was conscious of the fact that many workers havenot worked for 240 days in a year and have worked for four to five months in a year. The case of the petitioner, therefore, falls in this category. As per this, inter se senioritywas to be reckoned from the date of initial appointment i. e. 10/07/1984 andconsequential benefit of regularisation be given to him on this basis. All thenecessary procedure in this respect be completed within a period of four monthsfrom the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition isdisposed of with the above direction. No order as to costs.