R. B. DIXIT, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant/petitioner aggrieved by an offer to be appointed as Fuel Attendant in the pay scale of Rs. 750-12-870-15-945 and was also offered to be absorbed on the same pay, had filed a Writ Petition No. 2051/1997 before the learned single Judge of this Court. The contention of the petitioner/appellant was that this offer amounts to his reversion from the post of driver/vehicle Inspector. However, the learned single Judge by the impugned order found that in facts and circumstances of the case, this order does not amount to reversion. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief shorn of details are. that the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition No. 1015/1995 claiming that he was working since 1974 as Vehicle Inspector and has been directed to work as driver on the stage carriage after long lapse of time and it will be hazardous for the petitioner as well as travelling passengers as he met with an accident. This Court in that petition directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and decide his representation in accordance with law within a period of two months. Thereafter, the concerned authority offered him the post of fuel Attendant. However, the appellant/petitioner did not give his option and remained absent from his duty. ( 3 ) IT is not disputed that the petitioner/appellant was initially appointed on the post of driver in the year 1964 and had met with an accident while driving the vehicle, which caused personal injury to the petitioner. On account of infirmity, his licence was cancelled and the case of the petitioner was referred for change of cadre and it was recommended to post the petitioner on the post of Vehicle Inspector. However, meanwhile the post of Vehicle Inspector was abolished. Therefore, he was offered the immediate lower post of Fuel Attendant and the salary which he was drawing was also guaranteed in the aforesaid order of offer itself. ( 4 ) THE learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition observed that instead of submitting the option the petitioner stopped attending the duties, and the offer was also not challenged immediately after the order was passed. Since the respondents have submitted that the wages already paid to the petitioner shall not be curtailed even on the post of Fuel Attendant, this cannot be treated an order for reversion. Since the respondents have submitted that the wages already paid to the petitioner shall not be curtailed even on the post of Fuel Attendant, this cannot be treated an order for reversion. Since option was called in the year 1995, the petition itself was filed after two years from the offer, which was highly belated. It was further observed by the learned single Judge that the petitioner cannot claim to continue on a higher post whereas the respondents are prepared to pay him the same salary of the post he was holding. ( 5 ) THE learned Sr. counsel, Shri S. B. Mishra, appearing for the appellant/petitioner submits that even his previous salary was not paid to him and in no case he can be compelled to join on the post, which is lower in cadre. However, we are of the considered opinion that the respondents, after the petitioner was found unfit for the post of driver, could have very well terminated his services on medical grounds instead it is on compassionate ground that he was offered another post carrying same pay. This offer, in our opinion, does to not amount to an order of reversion. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal has no force and is dismissed accordingly. However, it is clarified that in case if previous arrears of salary are pending, the appellant is free to make a representation with regard to it to the concerned authority. .