 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 5451/2008 (Bapurao s/o Sukhdeorao Kurhade and others vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... S/Shri B H Dangre with S M Ghodeswar, Counsel for petitioners; S/Shri V G Wankhede / S.C.Mehadia, Counsel for Respondents. CORAM: D.D.SINHA & A. P. BHANGALE , JJ. DATED: 24th February, 2009. *** 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Circular dated 3.12.2007 is discriminatory since the benefits of Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement are extended only to those employees who had approached the Court. It is further contended that all the employees of Respondent No.1-Corporation being one class, are entitled to get the benefits of Clause 49 of the 1956 Settlement. However, by virtue of the Circular dated 3.12.2007, these benefits are restricted only to a particular clause of employees and, therefore, the Circular dated 3.12.2007 is unjust and discriminatory.  3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Circular dated 3.12.2007 is modified by another Circular dated 6.2.2009 and the benefits flowing from Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement are extended to all the employees of the 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 , the grievance of the petitioners no more survives. 4. In the backdrop of the above-referred facts, in our considered view, the cause of action in this petition does not survive in view of the Circular dated 6th February, 2009 issued by Respondent No.1-Corporation. Hence Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. JUDGE JUDGE sahare