Judgment 1. Mr. S. Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent, Mr. A.P. Muthupandi learned Standing Counsel takes notice for R3, Mr. K. Sathiya Singh learned Standing Counsel takes notice for R4, R6, R8 to R10, Mr. D. Sivaraman, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for R2, R5 and R7 and by consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. Heard the learned Counsel on either sides and perused the materials available on record. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the second respondent Trust in Letter No.44/B2/Tha.Aa.Po.Ka.Vu.O.Ni.Po/2013-768 dated 12.11.2013 quash the same insofar as denying revision in pension and consequently directing the respondents to revise, sanction and pay pension/family pension to all the retired transport corporation employees/legal heirs, including the petitioners 2 to 8 who were covered by settlements under Section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as agreed by them Clause 11(3) of Settlement entered under Section 12(3) of I.D. Act dated 22.01.2011 and also in compliance with the Resolution No.2010/11 of the second respondent Trust dated 14.02.2011 with an increase at the rate of 12% from 2007 and with an increase in accordance with pay revision given under the settlement dated 22.01.2011 with effect from 01.09.2010 respectively with arrears and interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 4. It is informed by Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2,5 and 7 that this Court in an identical circumstances made an order in W.P(MD)No.862 of 2015 dated 23.01.2015, directing the respondent Corporation to dispose of the representation made thereon, within a time stipulated thereon. 5. Thus, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that similar order can be passed in this matter also so that a comprehensive disposal of the representations made by the petitioners herein will also be considered and decided. 6. Since this Court has already passed an order directing the respondent to consider the representation in respect of the similar matters, I am of the view that it would be suffice a similar order is passed in this case also. 6. Since this Court has already passed an order directing the respondent to consider the representation in respect of the similar matters, I am of the view that it would be suffice a similar order is passed in this case also. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.01.2015 and pass orders on the same and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any view on the claim made by the petitioners as of now. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.