IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINTIAL Writ Petition No. 391 (SS) of 2010 Ashok Kumar …Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and another …Respondents Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel present for the petitioner. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel present for the respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is an employee of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation. He had some ailment and therefore prayed for a writ that he could not do the work of a Conductor and a suitable direction be given to the Director for assigning him less tenor work. Earlier a writ petition was filed by the petitioner, which was allowed with a direction to the authorities to assign the less tenor work. Consequently, the petitioner was given the work of Helper by order dated 19.12.2009. The petitioner refused to do this work on the ground that the work of Helper belongs to Class IV post and he was holding the post of Conductor, which belongs to Class III post. Though it is admitted case that the petitioner was assigned to be given a work requiring less physical exertion, as it was the direction prior to this disability. Now the petitioner has filed present writ petition claiming that the respondents be directed to assign some suitable work. No relief can be given to the petitioner as sought in the writ petition, inasmuch as the petitioner has not complied with the earlier order of the department dated 19.12.2009 and not even bothered to join on the post of Helper, which clearly shows that the petitioner has no financial constrains, as alleged. This is not the case where 2 the petitioner has joined on the post of Helper and thereafter approached this Court. As such, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 20.09.2011 VKG