JUDGMENT : Valmiki J. Mehta, J (ORAL);— 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the Delhi School Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the petitioner herein. The petitioner had challenged his reversion from the post of Transport Incharge to the post of Driver in the respondent No.2-school. 2. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner made a statement and admitted that his so-called reversion from the post of Transport Incharge to the Driver did not cause him any loss of pay/monetary benefits. This is referred to in para 4 of the impugned order under appeal and the said para 4 reads as under:- “4. During the course of arguments, the Appellant who was present in the Court in person stated on oath that even after the issuance of the impugned orders dated 22.07.2009, the Respondent School had not reduced his scale of pay. The statement of the Appellant was separately recorded. The same is reproduced below: “Present appeal has been filed by me against the orders dated 22.07.2009. Vide impugned orders the Respondent school had reduced my rank from Transport Incharge to the post of Driver in the Respondent School. I further state that even after the issuance of the impugned order, I continued getting the pay scale of Rs. 4,500-125-7,000, the scale of pay which I was enjoying while working as Transport Incharge. In other words I had not suffered any financial loss in my salary after the orders dated 22.07.2009 referred to above, were passed.” The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on the ground that since there was no financial loss to the petitioner, there does not arise the question of reduction of rank so as to prejudice the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the respondent No.2 informs me that the petitioner has already been terminated from services on 17.1.2012, and to which counsel for the petitioner states that the said order is already under challenge before the Delhi School Tribunal. I am therefore not required to go into the aspect of termination. 4. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Gopaul Vs. The Union of India and Ors. I am therefore not required to go into the aspect of termination. 4. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Gopaul Vs. The Union of India and Ors. AIR 1967 SC 1864 that where a person as a head of the department is posted elsewhere not as a head of the department, however, there is no reduction in the pay of such person, it cannot be said that there is a reduction in rank of such a person. 5. Since in the present case the petitioner has not suffered any loss of pay on account of change of his duties from Transport Incharge to Driver, relying upon the judgment in the case of K. Gopaul (supra), it is held that there is no reduction in the rank which prejudices the petitioner. There is therefore no error in the judgment of the Tribunal. 6. The writ petition, being without any merit, is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.