JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. This petition is filed by six retired employees of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation"). The petitioners are members of Jagrat Ladai Samiti. It is, however, pertinent that the petition is not filed by the said Samiti The said Samiti does not appear to have passed any resolution authorizing present six petitioners to file petition for such demand on behalf of the Samiti. Despite such facts six retired employees of the corporation have taken out this petition and prayed for below quoted relief:- "17(B) issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the Circular No. 1992 dated 3-10/11-2010 issued by the respondent No. 1 Corporation in so far as it denies the monetary benefits of 6th Pay Commission recommendations in cash to the petitioners w.e.f. 1/1/2016. (C) issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to hold that the Circulars/Resolution No. 1992 dated 03rd October/November, 2010 is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, illogical and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and violative of various wage settlements/labour settlements arrived at between the parties and the same may be declared as illegal, illogical, irrational, arbitrary and violative of policies issued by State of Gujarat. (D) issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to hold that the petitioners are eligible for and entitled to get the benefits of the 6th Pay Revision w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and, therefore, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction upon the concerned respondent authorities to disburse the difference of salary and other consequential benefits to the petitioners. (E) issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the concerned respondent authorities to hold that the petitioners are eligible for and entitled to the Gratuity amount of Rs. 10.00 Lacs and, therefore, suitable directions be issued upon the concerned respondent authorities to pay the difference of gratuity to the petitioners together with interest thereon at the rate of 12.00% per annum. (F) issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the decision/communication/order dated 12/10/2011 passed by the respondent-1 Corporation authorities on the representation made by the petitioners. (F) issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the decision/communication/order dated 12/10/2011 passed by the respondent-1 Corporation authorities on the representation made by the petitioners. (G) grant interim relief and be pleased to grant stay of further operation, implementation and execution of the Circular dated 3/10/2010 (3/11/2010) being No. 1992 in so far as it denies the monetary benefits of 6th Pay Commission's Recommendations to the petitioners in cash w.e.f. 1/1/2006, pending admission and final hearing of the present petition (H) pass any such other and/or further order/s as deemed just and proper in the interest of justice (I) be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to direct the State of Gujarat i.e. the present respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 to consider and decide the representation preferred by the petitioners dated 14/7/2011 which is annexed at Annexure-L pages 188 to 228 in the main petition as expeditiously as possible in the interest of justice." 2. From the relief prayed for by the petitioners in present petition it emerges that the crux of the demand by the petitioners' is that the corporation should adopt the recommendation of 6th Pay Commission and the corporation should also pay salary and other benefits to its existing employees and erstwhile employees, on the basis of recommendation of 6th Pay Commission and that such benefit should be paid w.e.f. 1.1.2006. 3. Before proceeding further it is relevant to mention that from the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioners it has emerged that present petitioners had earlier filed writ petition for similar benefit i.e. Special Civil Application No. 3920/2011. 3.1 The petitioners in the said petition were directed to file individual/separate petition. Consequently other petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 5396 of 2011 and connected matters for similar relief came to be filed. 3.2 The said petitions were disposed of by the Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.K. Rathod, as his Lordships then was) vide order dated 29.6.2011. The said order reads thus:- "1. Heard learned advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar appearing on behalf of petitioners and learned AGP Mr. A.L. Sharma appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2-State Authorities. 2. 3.2 The said petitions were disposed of by the Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.K. Rathod, as his Lordships then was) vide order dated 29.6.2011. The said order reads thus:- "1. Heard learned advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar appearing on behalf of petitioners and learned AGP Mr. A.L. Sharma appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2-State Authorities. 2. In all these group petitions, prayer made by the petitioners in para-9(A) to 9(E) are quoted as under: "(A) grant the present petition; (B) issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to hold that the Circulars/Resolution No. 1992 dated 3rd November, 2010 is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, illogical and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India to the extent that it does not grant the benefits of the 6th Pay Revision to the petitioners, who have retired on or after 1st January, 2006 and onward and, therefore, to the aforesaid extent only, the same may kindly be declared as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the same may kindly be taken/treated as violative of the policies issued by the State of Gujarat and this Honourable Court may further be pleased to hold that the petitioners are eligible for and entitled to get the benefits of the 6th Pay Revision and, therefore, this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction upon the concerned respondent authorities to disburse the difference of salary and other consequential benefits to the petitioners after giving effect of the 6th Pay Revision and all the consequential benefits be ordered to be paid to the petitioners together with interest thereon at the rate of 12.00% per annum; (C) issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the concerned respondent authorities to hold that the petitioners are eligible for and entitled to the Gratuity amount of Rs. 10.00 Lacs and, therefore, suitable directions be issued upon the concerned respondent authorities to pay the difference of gratuity to the petitioners together with interest thereon at the rate of 12.00% per annum; (D) issue appropriate writ, order or directions and be pleased to hold that the petitioners are entitled and eligible to receive the benefits of 6th Pay Revision w.e.f. 1/1/2006, as per Resolution issued by the Finance Department dated 13/4/2009 and the said benefits be ordered to be made implementative w.e.f. 1/1/2006 onwards and be pleased to hold that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefits of 6th Pay Revised Pay Scales w.e.f. 1/1/2006 and be pleased to hold that the respondent No. 3 Corporation are liable to pay revised pay scales and other ancillary benefits, retirement dues to the petitioners w.e.f. 1/1/2006; (E) pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Honourable Court be pleased to grant interim/ad-interim relief and be further pleased to direct the concerned respondent authorities to take appropriate decision/to reconsider the decision for granting the benefits of the 6th Pay Revision as per the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2009 and appropriate decision may kindly be ordered to be taken for granting interest to the petitioners and the decision may be ordered to be placed on record, by way of interim/ad interim relief, till the present petition is being heard and finally decided by this Honourable Court." 3. The real grievance of the petitioners of present petitions is that circular No. 1992 dated 3/11/2010, Annexure-E, page- 116 which has been issued by ST Corporation after getting sanction from State Government dated 4/9/2010, benefit flowing from this circular has not been extended in favour of present petitioners those who have retired with effect from 1/1/2006 an also dismissed and died subsequent to 1/1/2006. 4. Learned advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar submitted that there is policy of ST Corporation, consistence that as and when settlement in respect to pay revision has been arrived with a recognized unions where cut off date has been given but the employees those who have retired subsequent to cut off date or died or dismissed even though benefit of pay revision has been extended in their favour. That policy has been changed by ST Corporation while issuing aforesaid circular No. 1992 dated 3/11/2010 placing particular condition in item No. 2.2 sub item No. 7, page-120 of present petition where specific condition has been incorporated by corporation that this benefit is not made available or not to be extended in favour of employees those who are retired prior to 1/1/2008. Learned advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar submitted that this circular is required to be implemented with effect from 1/1/2008 and actual arrears is to be paid by corporation with effect from 1/1/2011. Though earlier period has been treated as notional no benefit has been extended to employees those who have retired, died and dismissed subsequent to 1/1/2006. Learned advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar submitted that aforesaid circular has been issued by Corporation after obtaining consent/sanction from Government even though Government policy in such similar case is that where pay revision has been made effective that has been made applicable to all employees those who are in service on date of such order and even those who are retired prior to that date of order of pay revision i.e. 1/1/2006. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar relied upon page-198 where Government Resolution dated 27/2/2009 issued by State Government on the basis of recommendation given by Central Government in respect to Corporation and other employees those who are working in Board and Nigam. He submitted that even this circular has not been complied by Corporation at the time of issuing aforesaid circular No. 1992 dated 3/11/2010. 5. I have considered submissions made by learned advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar and learned AGP Mr. Sharma. 6. In item Nos. 15, 16 and 17 at page-128 of present petitions, specific provision has been made in circular to have over riding effect of present circular in respect to existing service regulation and condition and also having a power with Corporation to consider hardship, injustice if occurred to any employee and in that circumstances Corporation is entitled to reconsider such case of grievance which has been arose from implementation of particular circular No. 1992 dated 3/11/2010 and even item No. 17 also suggests that if any question of interpretation is to be arose, same to be decided by Corporation. Therefore, in light of this background, injustice which has been occurred to present petitioners denying benefit of pay revision because of circular No. 1992 dated 3/11/2010, before that of filing present petitions by petitioners have not approached to ST Corporation as well as State Government. Therefore, this petitions at this stage are not entertained by this Court only on that ground. Therefore, let petitioners or any registered union on their behalf may make detailed representation to State Government, respondent No. 1 and 2 and also to respondent corporation within a period of fifteen days from date of receipt of copy of present order. As and when respondents-State Government and respondent corporation receives such representation from petitioners, it is directed to respondents State Government and respondent corporation to reconsider and reexamine grievance of present petitioners and examine it sympathetically and also consider past policy for implementing such settlement of pay revision in favour of such employees those who are working with corporation and benefits were extended in their favour irrespective of fact that whether they were retired or dismissed or died during the pendency of such settlement or subsequent to cut off date. Therefore, let this aspect may properly examined by respondents State Government and respondent corporation within a period of two months from date of receipt of representation from petitioners. 7. Looking to difficulty, hardship and injustice voiced in present petitions by petitioners according to my opinion, before deciding representation by respondents State Government as well as respondent corporation let three representatives from petitioners to be given personal hearing for explaining difficulty, hardship and injustice caused to petitioners whose names will be given by petitioners in their representation and thereafter pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law considering also item No. 16, 17 of circular dated 3/11/2010 within a period of three months from date of receipt of such representation from petitioners or union and then communicate decision immediately without any delay. 8. It is directed to respondents State Authority as well as respondent corporation to consider Government Resolution dated 13/4/2009 and 27/2/2009 and also to consider observations made by Industrial Tribunal in its part award while deciding representation. 9. It is open for petitioners to make representation in respect to claiming benefit of pay revision, gratuity and all other service benefits arises from circular No. 1992 dated 3/11/2010. 10. 9. It is open for petitioners to make representation in respect to claiming benefit of pay revision, gratuity and all other service benefits arises from circular No. 1992 dated 3/11/2010. 10. In view of above observation and direction present petitions are disposed of by this Court without expressing any opinion on merits. However, in case if any ultimate decision is adverse to petitioners is passed then it is open for petitioners to challenge same by filing appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum in accordance with law. 11. It is made clear that such representation which is to be made by petitioners as there are number of petitioners, therefore let five representative from petitioners may sign such representation and send it to respondents State Government as well as respondent Corporation. That representation may be treated as a representation from all petitioners of present petitions. In case if positive decision is taken by respondents, let it be implemented as early as possible in favour of petitioners. " 4. From the said order it emerges that the petitioners were directed to make representation. 4.1 It appears that in pursuance of the said order the petitioners had submitted representation dated 14.7.2011 and that the opponent corporation considered said representation and the decision was rendered vide order dated 12.10.2011. 4.2 For the reasons mentioned in the order i.e. 12.10.2011 the corporation did not accept the representation/demand by the petitioners. 4.3 In this background present petition is filed by six retired employees. 5. The petitioners have prayed that the decision dated 12.11.2011 may be quashed and the corporation may be directed to adopt and implement recommendation by 6th pay commission. 6. Before proceeding further it is relevant to note that Gujarat Rajya State Transport Nivrutta Kamdar Mahamandal has filed a petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 294/2012 and challenged part-I award dated 11.11.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 123 of 2003. It is pertinent to mention that in the said reference case the union had prayed, inter alia, for direction for implementation of 6th Pay Commission. 6.1 In present petition almost similar relief is prayed for by the union representing "retired employees". 7. During hearing of the petition it is given out by Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. 6.1 In present petition almost similar relief is prayed for by the union representing "retired employees". 7. During hearing of the petition it is given out by Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Tanna, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent corporation respectively (after taking instruction from the concerned employees) that the said union is a recognized union in the corporation. 8. In this view of the matter, relief prayed for in said petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 294/2012 which is filed by abovenamed union deserves to be taken into account. The said relief reads thus:- "(a) Quashing and setting aside the impugned Part-I award 11-11-08 passed by the Industrial Tribunal Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) No. 123 of 2003 and other references. (b) Quashing and setting aside the final award 15-12-08 passed by the Industrial Tribunal Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) No. 123 of 2003 and other references. (c) Quashing and setting aside the Circular No. 1992 dated 3.11.2010 issued by the respondent No. 1 corporation in so far as it denies the monetary benefits of 6th Pay Commission Recommendation in cash to the retired employees with effect from 01.01.2006 and consequential benefits on that basis. (d) Directing the respondent No. 1 corporation to pay to the retired employees of the respondent No. 1 corporation including the members of the petitioner No. 1 union and other petitioners the monetary benefits of 6th Pay Commission Recommendation with effect from 01.01.2006 in cash and to pay all consequential benefits like pay and allowances etc. and difference in retirement benefits like gratuity, P.F. etc. (e) Granting such other and further relief and passing such other and further orders as may be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case" 9. From the above quoted facts it clearly emerges that almost similar relief have been prayed for in present petition i.e. in Special Civil Application No. 2501 of 2012 and Special Civil Application No. 294 of 2012. 9.1 This is one reason in light of which present petition does not deserve to be entertained. 10. From the above quoted facts it clearly emerges that almost similar relief have been prayed for in present petition i.e. in Special Civil Application No. 2501 of 2012 and Special Civil Application No. 294 of 2012. 9.1 This is one reason in light of which present petition does not deserve to be entertained. 10. Second reason in light of which present petition does not deserve to be entertained is that a union representing majority of employees has filed petition whereas six retired employees have filed separate petition and only with a view to maintaining separate petition an attempt is made to frame relief in such a manner that it can be contended that present petitioners have prayed for different relief than the relief which are prayed for in the petition filed by union. 10.1 However, on reading the relief prayed for in the two petitions it emerges, that in substance and in effect the demand by the petitioners is almost similar i.e. that the corporation should adopt and implement the recommendation of 6th Pay Commission and pay benefits as well as arrears on that basis. 10.2 In this context the corporation has raised certain contentions against maintainability of the petition which deserve to be taken into account. 11. Having regard to the fact that the corporation is autonomous corporation and is created under the provisions of Road Transport Corporation Act, the respondent corporation is entitled to take its own decision with regard to pay-scale of its employees and it is not bound in any manner to automatically and mechanically implement the decision of State Government in respect of government employees. 11.1 The decision by State Government in respect of government employees - more particularly with regard to pay - scales and/or service conditions and/or other benefits, perquisites etc. would not be automatically binding to the Corporation. 11.2 Obviously, the demand raised by the claimant will impose financial burden on the corporation. Therefore it is the corporation who can take decision with regard to demand by keeping in focus its financial position. 12. The decision of the corporation with regard to the pay-scale and service conditions of the employees would depend on its own financial position and other relevant factors. Therefore it is the corporation who can take decision with regard to demand by keeping in focus its financial position. 12. The decision of the corporation with regard to the pay-scale and service conditions of the employees would depend on its own financial position and other relevant factors. Merely because State Government adopts and implements recommendation of pay commission for government employees, it will not ipso facto and mechanically impose corresponding obligation and financial burden on the corporation to adopt and implement the decision of State Government and corporation would not be obliged to mechanically adopt recommendation of pay commission, in respect of its own employees and/or the recommendations of pay commission would not automatically be applicable to and binding to the corporation and its employees. 12.1 It is the prerogative and right of the corporation to take its own independent decision and the demand by the petitioners that since the government has adopted and implemented recommendation of such 6th Pay Commission, the Corporation should also follow same, cannot be accepted and entertained and Court cannot mechanically pass such direction. 13. At the same time the right of the employees to demand particular pay-scale including right to demand pay salary and other benefits on the basis of recommendation of pay commission and/or to demand wages at the rate which are at par with government employees or of any other establishment, is an independent claim and it cannot be denied. 14. However to pursue such demand the employees or the union representing employees/union has to follow procedure prescribed by law i.e. they have to raise demand/dispute in accordance with law. 15. If such demand by the employee for better or higher pay-scale, salary etc. is not accepted by the employer/corporation, then such employees/union can raise appropriate demand (industrial dispute) and get it adjudicated in accordance with law before learned Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court. 15.1 Before said forum both the parties will get opportunity to lead evidence and to establish justification for the demand and the reasons for not accepting demand. 15.2 However if there is justification in the demand then learned Tribunal or learned Labour Court, after examining various relevant factors can determine as to whether such financial burden can be or should be imposed on the corporation or not. 15.2 However if there is justification in the demand then learned Tribunal or learned Labour Court, after examining various relevant factors can determine as to whether such financial burden can be or should be imposed on the corporation or not. 15.3 Such decision can be taken by the learned Labour Court or learned Industrial Tribunal after having regard to the financial position of the employer. 15.4 Thus, present petition is not proper remedy and this petition does not deserve to be entertained, more particularly because such demand/dispute seems to have been adjudicated by learned Tribunal and part-I award seems to have passed and that award is matter of challenge in Special civil Application No. 294 of 2012 16. In this view of the matter, present petition which is preferred upon rejection of the representation is not maintainable and does not deserve to be entertained. 17. The Corporation seems to have considered the representation and having regard to its financial position it seems to have taken decision that it will not be possible for the corporation to shoulder such additional financial burden and therefore the corporation declined to adopt implementation of recommendation of 6th Pay Commission. If the union/employees fact that the decision is incorrect or unjustified and their demand is justified then the remedy is to get it adjudicated. 17.1 This Court in exercise of prerogative writ jurisdiction cannot compel the corporation to adopt recommendation of 6th Pay Commission and to implement it and that too without having regard to its financial position, more particularly only on the premise that the State Government has adopted the recommendation and implemented recommendation in respect of government employee and therefore corporation should also do that. 17.2 Such decision can be taken only after evaluating evidence, specially with reference to the quantum of burden and corporation's paying capacity and its financial position. 18. On such basis or premise such direction cannot be passed. 19. Under the circumstances the relief prayed for by the petitioners in present petition cannot be granted. 20. The petition is therefore not entertained and deserves to be rejected and accordingly the petition is hereby rejected. The petition stands disposed of. Rule is discharged. Orders accordingly. Petition Dismissed.