1 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7230 OF 2009 1.Arjun Dattatraya Shirke & ors. ...Petitioners vs. 1.Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. ...Respondents --- Mr.V.P.Vaidya, for Petitioners. Mr.G.S.Hegde, for Respondent nos. 1 & 2. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED: 8TH FEBRUARY,2010 P.C.: 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for 2 respondents has made it clear that by virtue of Circular dated 6.2.2009 benefits arising out of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Premlal, 2007 II CLR 501 are applicable to all the employees who comply with the requirements of clause 49 of 1956 Settlement. He further states that the petitioners are also entitled to the benefits of clause 49 of 1956 settlement. The statement is accepted. The grievance of the petitioners, however, is that they have not yet been paid as per the provisions of clause 49 of 1956 Settlement. In this view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- (i) Within a period of four weeks from today, the petitioners shall make individual representation to the Respondent no.2 giving full details about their services, the amount to which they were entitled to according to clause 49 of 1956 Settlement, the amount that they have actually received and the difference to which, according to 3 them, they are entitled. After receiving the representations, Respondent no.2 shall consider it in accordance with law and shall make a reasoned order on each representation within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the representations. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the order, they shall be at liberty to adopt the remedy as may be available to them under law. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.)