RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) THE present petition is filed by a driver of the respondent-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation ("the Corporation" for short) for the relief to the effect that the order dated 3rd June, 1998 passed by the Divisional Controller, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Surat Division, whereby the period between 27th September, 1997 to 5th May, 1998 of 221 days is treated to be leave without pay, be quashed and set aside. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner was having some physical disability rendering him incapable of serving as driver with the respondent-Corporation and, therefore, he was medically examined on 23rd September, 1997 and 26th September, 1997. Thereafter, the medical authorities had issued a certificate dated 5th November, 1997 certifying that "in the present circumstances, the petitioner is not fit to discharge his duties as driver on permanent basis. " By a letter dated 21st November, 1997, the respondent-Corporation informed the petitioner that as the certificate incorporates the words, "in the present circumstances", which run counter to the other part of the certificate, namely, `he is not fit to discharge the duties as driver on permanent basis, he should get the mistake rectified. The certificate was issued again, after rectifying the aforesaid mistake, on 1st December, 1997. Thereafter, the respondent-Corporation took unreasonably long time of five months i. e. from 01. 12. 1997 to 05. 05. 1998 to issue the posting order. ( 3 ) MR. PRABHAKAR Upadyay for Mr. M. H. Rathod, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, rightly submitted that for a while, if for the period between 23. 09. 1997 to 01. 12. 1997, the petitioner is treated to be on leave without pay, he may not seriously protest and agitate about the same, but then, after the rectified medical certificate dated 1st December, 1997 was submitted to the respondent authorities for a period of five months, the authorities did not issue the posting order, for which no fault can be found with the petitioner and, therefore, that period cannot be ordered to be treated as `leave without pay. He submitted that the petitioner cannot be deprived of the salary for that subsequent period as he did not contribute in the said delay. ( 4 ) MRS. He submitted that the petitioner cannot be deprived of the salary for that subsequent period as he did not contribute in the said delay. ( 4 ) MRS. VASAVDUTTA Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, submitted that the petition is not maintainable and is required to be dismissed. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having gone through the record of the case, it is clear that the contention raised by Mr. Upadhyay that after the duly rectified medical certificate dated 1st December, 1997 was submitted to the respondent authorities, it was the authorities, which did not issue the posting order till 5th May, 1998 and, therefore, that period cannot be ordered to be treated as `leave without pay, is justified and also appeals to the logic. When the authorities had already received the certificate dated 1st December, 1997, not a word is set out as to what prevented the authorities from issuing the posting order. In view of that, to punish the petitioner by ordering to treat him to be on leave without pay for such period, is uncalled for and deserves to be quashed and set aside. ( 6 ) FOR the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is partly allowed. The order dated 3rd June, 1998 passed by respondent no. 2 is hereby quashed and set aside to a limited extent. The period from 01. 12. 1997 to 05. 05. 1998, which is ordered to be treated as leave without pay, be treated as on duty. The respondents are directed to pay the petitioner the wages for the said period. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. No order as to costs. .