1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1613 OF 2009 Suresh Ganpat Patil & Ors. ... Petitioners. Vs. M.S.R.T.C. &Ors. ... Respondents. None for petitioner. Mr. G.S.Hegde i/by G.S.Hegde & Associates for respondent No.1. CORAM : V.C.DAGA & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE : October 14, 2009. P.C. 1. None for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Hegde, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Since nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution. However, the dismissal of the petition invariably results in restoration application, which is normally granted and it creates strain on the Registry. Under these circumstances we called upon Mr. Hegde to argue the matter and to justify the action of the respondents. 2 4. Mr. Hegde learned Counsel for the respondents, during the course of hearing, brought to our notice the order dated 24th February, 2009 wherein an identical petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court, at Nagpur Bench, Nagpur being Writ Petition No. 4908 of 2008 holding that petition had become infructuous for the reasons recorded in the order. 5. The present petition is directed against the Circular dated 3.12.2007 issued by the MSRTC contending that the said Circular is discriminatory since the benefits of the provisions of Clause 49 of the 1956 settlement are not extended to the employees, who were or are approaching the court. 6. Mr. Hegde brought to our notice that the aforesaid Circular dated 3.12.2007 under which the benefits were refused only to a particular class of employees has now been modified by another Circular dated 6.2.2008 whereby all benefits flowing from the said clause 49 of 1956 settlement are extended to all the employees of respondent No.1- Corporation in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. PREMLAL, reported in 2003 (3) MH.L.J. 1025. He thus submits that the grievance of the petitioners now does not survive. 3 7. In the above view of the matter and keeping in mind the order of the Nagpur Bench, we have no option but to hold that in view of the subsequent developments the petition is rendered infructuous. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs. 7. Photo copy of the Order of Nagpur Bench is retained on record for reference. [V.C.DAGA, J.] [A.A.SAYED, J.]