HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1526 of 2006 (S/S) Vineet Kumar Saxena S/o late Shri Kailash Chandra Saxena … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents Dated:- 13th May, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri G. C. Lakhchaura, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the State. The petitioner is working as a Collection Amin and has filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to count the seniority of the petitioner w.e.f. 10th December, 1984 i.e. from the initial date of his appointment on the post of Collection Amin. The petitioner contends that earlier he was working as a Seasonal Collection Amin and on 10.12.1984 he was allowed to work as a Collection Amin. Since he was not given the designation and wages, he filed a Writ Petition No.Nil/1991 before the Allahabad High Court in which an interim order dated 19.12.1991 was passed directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a Collection Amin or to show cause. Pursuant to this interim order, the District Magistrate vide order dated 19.12.1991 appointed the petitioner as Collection Amin w.e.f. 27.01.1992 and his seniority as a Collection Amin is being counted from that date onwards i.e. 27.01.1992. The petitioner contends that his seniority should be counted from the date of his initial appointment i.e. from 10th December, 1984 as a Collection Amin. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress the court upon the various documents, which have been annexed to the writ 2 petition, to indicate that the petitioner has been working as a Collection Amin from 10th December, 1984 onwards. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the various annexures of the writ petition, this Court finds that the petitioner had only worked as a Collection Amin from 10.12.1984 to 11.06.1985 and had never worked continuously from 10.12.1984 till the date he was appointed in the year 1992 as a Collection Amin pursuant to an interim order of the writ court dated 19.12.1991. In the absence of any documentary proof being submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner had continuously worked from 1984 to 1992, this Court is of the opinion that this period from 1984 to 1992 cannot be counted towards his seniority on the post of Collection Amin. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 13.05.2010 LSR