SCA/10567/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10567 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to civil judge ? ========================================================= JAYESHBHAI RAMCHANDRABHAI YADAV - Petitioner(s) Versus GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY for Petitioner(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 25/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for below mentioned relief:- “17.(A) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order and SCA/10567/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT direction to direct the respondent, corporation to provide the work as per the order / letter dated 22.10.2007 to the present petitioner.” The communication dated 22.10.2007, the implementation of which the petitioner has prayed for by virtue of the above referred relief, is at Annexure – F (Page 30) of the petition. It appears that due to certain complications, the petitioner had to undergo coronary bypass grafting surgery and in view of the said bio medical complication, the petitioner, as per his case, is not in position to perform his duties, which he was performing earlier and that therefore, the petitioner has been asking for any alternative / lighter duties. It appears that in pursuance of such request by the petitioner, the respondent corporation addressed subject communication dated 22.10.2007 to the petitioner. As per the said letter, the respondent corporation informed the petitioner that there is no provision in the rules to provide alternative / light duties. However, an alternative can be worked out in SCA/10567/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT accordance with the terms of the settlement with the union which provides for change in category and as per the said settlement, he can be, upon change in his category, offered alternative / light duties. By the said communication, the respondent corporation also asked for consent of the petitioner for such change in his caegory as per the settlement terms and informed him that upon receiving such consent from him, his category can be changed to that of peon and accordingly, duties can be assigned to him. It appears that after the said letter, the petitioner, instead of forwarding his clear and unconditional consent, addressed a counter / letter dated 13.12.2007 to the respondent corporation, which is at Annexure – H (Page 35) of the petition wherein, he has expressly not given his consent, as requested for by the respondent corporation, clearly stating that he is ready and willing for the change in category and is also ready and willing to accept the change in category and to work as such. On the contrary, he has claimed in his letter dated 13.12.2007 that he may be provided lighter duties SCA/10567/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT considering the medical certificate. The said communication is as vague as it can be. After having forwarded such communication dated 13.12.2007, the petitioner has approached this court by present petition with the aforesaid relief and has prayed for implementation of the communication dated 22.10.2007 as if it is the corporation who is not acting as per its letter dated 22.10.2007. Since, the respondent corporation has addressed letter dated 22.10.2007 and has offered change in category and also offered to provide the work of peon after placing him in the cadre of peon, it is obvious that once the petitioner complies with the requirement of the corporation i.e. gives his written consent, the corporation would naturally implement the said communication dated 22.10.2007. Under the circumstances, it is observed that as and when the petitioner conveys his consent, if he really intends to do so in light of the offer made by the respondent corporation, then, after receipt of such consent form the petitioner, the corporation SCA/10567/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT should act in accordance with its communication dated 22.10.2007. With the aforesaid observations and clarification, present petition is disposed off. [K.M.Thaker, J.] kdc