ORDER : 1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction against the respondents to consider his services from the date of initial appointment i.e. on 31.05.1983 and to grant benefit of seniority and selection grade accordingly as well to release his due arrears of salary by counting of service from the date of initial appointment i.e. on 31.05.1983. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Mr. Sanjay Khedar submits that the petitioner was initially engaged as Conductor on daily wages w.e.f. 31.05.1983, however, his services were illegally terminated and on filing appeal, directions were given to reinstate the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner was re-engaged as daily wager on 01.03.1986. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that vide order dated 20.10.1987, he was appointed on the post of Conductor on probation basis for one year in the pay scale of Rs.880-680/- 4. Learned counsel submits that vide order dated 19.05.2004, he was granted first selection grade on completion of nine years' service w.e.f. 01.10.1998. Learned counsel would submit that when he was appointed in the year 1983, there is no justified reasons to ignore his earlier services and to grant him benefit of selection grade on completion of nine years' service from 01.10.1998, whereas the same ought to have been granted from much earlier date. Learned counsel has also raised a grievance that even while assigning him seniority, his services rendered by as daily wager have not been taken into account, for which he is otherwise entitled. He has also stated that not granting seniority by counting his services w.e.f. 31.05.1983, would prejudice his future prospects, hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petition by granting him the relief as prayed for. 5. On the contrary, learned senior counsel Mr. J.K. Singhi, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Tarun Kumar Verma, has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition by raising an objection that the writ petition filed by the petitioner suffers from delay and latches for the reason that order of grant of selection grade to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.10.1998 was issued on 19.05.2004, whereas the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition after a delay of 13 years, for which no explanation whatsoever has been given in the memo of writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel has further objected that even the order of grant of selection grade w.e.f. 01.10.1998 has not been put to challenge by the petitioner either in the instant writ petition or elsewhere, rather he has accepted all the benefits of the aforesaid order dated 19.05.2004 and has been drawing salary accordingly. 6. Learned Senior Counsel states that by not challenging the order dated 19.05.2004, the petitioner has waived and acquiesced his right to raise any contention contrary to the above order dated 19.05.2004. 7. Learned counsel has also drawn attention of this Court towards various penalties inflicted upon the petitioner during service. Details of such penalties have been given in Annexure-R/2 enclosed with reply to the writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court towards one office order dated 21.05.2004, wherein it has been provided that in case penalty has been awarded in pursuant to disciplinary enquiry to an employee then the selection grade can be deferred in the manner prescribed in office order dated 21.05.2004, hence, on account of penalties sustained by the petitioner, his selection grade was deferred and rightly given to the petitioner vide order dated 19.05.2004 w.e.f. 01.10.1998. In view of above, the learned Senior Counsel prayed for rejecting the writ petition. 8. I have considered the record of the writ petition and have also heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for both the parties. 9. It is an admitted fact that petitioner was not regularly appointed on 31.05.1983 and on that date, he was simply engaged as a daily wager. It is settled proposition of law that daily wager does not hold any substantive post, hence, the services rendered by the petitioner as daily wager from 31.05.1983 till his regular appointment i.e. up to 20.10.1987 cannot be counted for the purpose of grant of selection grade or even for assigning him seniority. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Narian Chaturvedi, (2009) 12 SCC 49 has held that for the purpose of grant of selection grade only the regular services rendered by any employee can be taken into account. 11. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Narian Chaturvedi, (2009) 12 SCC 49 has held that for the purpose of grant of selection grade only the regular services rendered by any employee can be taken into account. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not disputed the fact that he has awarded so many penalties during his services and has also not objected against the office order dated 21.05.2004 issued by the respondent-Corporation for deferring the benefit of selection grade in the light of penalties in the service records. 12. Even otherwise, no justification whatsoever has been provided by the petitioner for filing the instant writ petition after a delay of around 13 years from the date of issuance of order dated 19.05.2004, hence, on that account also the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. The grievance with regard to not granting salary to the petitioner in the year 1983 is also highly belated and even otherwise, no factual foundation in this regard has been given by the petitioner in the entire memo of writ petition. 13. In view of above, I do not find any merit and substance in the writ petition. 14. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed as aforesaid. 15. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.