JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, in order to maintain clarity, the facts of CWP No. 11097 of 2011 have been taken into consideration. 2. The petitioners, who joined as Junior Engineers with diploma in Civil/Mechanical/Electrical Engineering, retired after having been promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer/Executive Engineer/Sr. Executive Engineer, as per the details provided in Annexure P-1. The respondent-Board has introduced ‘time bound benefit of promotional scales’ (‘TBPS’ in short) to its employees after completion of 9/16 years regular service in the Board, having a maximum scale upto `3500/- on 31.01.1991, except to the categories where the benefit of time bound placement to higher scale was applicable on HP Govt. pattern. Vide Order No. 12, the petitioners were granted the first time bound benefit of promotion scales as on 01.01.1986 and were placed in the pay scale of `2000-3500/-. Order No. 14 was issued on 31.01.1991, whereby the incumbents, who have completed 9 years service, were to be placed in the pay scale of `3000-5600/- and the candidates, who have completed 16 years service, were granted the pay scale of `4500-6300 / -. 3.A Note was appended to Para-2 in Office Order No. 14, dated 31.01.1991, which reads as under: “NOTE:- The Departmental employees (Technical Subordinates and Drawing Staff) who while in service of the Board have been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer against quota reserved for promotion from amongst them as per R & P Regulations shall be deemed to have been appointed as Assistant Engineers like the Assistant Engineers appointed through direct appointment for the purpose of grant of next higher scales after 9/16 years of regular service as A.E./A.E.E./XEN prescribed period to be counted from the date of joining the post of Assistant Engineer on regular basis. Similarly, graduates in Engineering/AMIE qualified hands who possess this qualification before joining the service of the Board and subsequently promoted as Assistant Engineer against quota reserved for promotion from amongst them will be treated likewise.” 4. Similarly, graduates in Engineering/AMIE qualified hands who possess this qualification before joining the service of the Board and subsequently promoted as Assistant Engineer against quota reserved for promotion from amongst them will be treated likewise.” 4. The respondent-Board, vide Office Order No. 57, dated 29.10.1993, has substituted the existing Note appearing below Para No. 2 as under: “NOTE:- The departmental employees (Techniucal Subordinates and Drawing Staff) who while in service of the Board, have acquired degree in Engineering or passed A.M.I.E. in full and has been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers, against quota reserved for promotion from amongst them in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules shall be deemed to have been appointed through direct recruitment for the purpose of grant of above next higher scales after 9/16 years of regular service as A.E./A.E.E./XEN, prescribed period to be counted from the date of joining the post of Assistant Engineer on regular basis. Similarly graduates in Engineering/AMIE qualified hands who possess this qualification before joining the service of the Board and subsequently promoted as A.E. against quota reserved for promotion from amongst them in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules will be treated likewise.” 5. The validity of Note appended to Para-2 was challenged in this Court by filing CWP No. 1847 of 1993, which was decided on 13.12.1994. The judgment, dated 13.12.1994, was implemented by the respondent Board vide Annexure P-6. The respondent-Board has issued Revised Pay Regulations in 1998 w.e.f. 01.01.1996, whereby the 1st TBPS of ‘3000-5600/- was revised to ‘12500-17150/- and the 2nd TBPS of ‘4500-6300/- was revised to ‘15350-21600/-. Since the judgment, dated 13.12.1994, rendered by this Court in CWP No. 1847 of 1993 was implemented, all the incumbents whether Junior Engineers and AMIE promoted against their quotas were granted the TBPS as per the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board revised Regulations, 1998 w.e.f. 01.0 1.1996. Thereafter, the respondents-Board on 14.03.2002 decided to grant the revised time bound higher scales to the categories of Assistant Engineers/Assistant Executive Engineers/XENs/Sr. XENs. w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Thereafter, the respondents-Board on 14.03.2002 decided to grant the revised time bound higher scales to the categories of Assistant Engineers/Assistant Executive Engineers/XENs/Sr. XENs. w.e.f. 01.01.1996. However, the respondent-Board has again appended a Note below Para No. 2, which reads as under: “NOTE:-The benefit of time bound higher scales would also be admissible to those Engineers who acquire degree in Engineering or pass AMIE in Full and has been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer against quota reserved for promotion from amongst them in R & P Rules shall be deemed to have been appointed through direct recruitment for the purpose of grant of above next higher scales after 9/16 years of regular service as AE/AEE/XEN provided he has not drawn the said benefit on the lower post.” In view of this insertion of Note, the petitioners were left out and only AE/AEE (AMIE) were held entitled to the benefit of time bound higher scale. The validity of the Note appended to Para No. 2 vide Office Order No. 16, dated 14.03.2002, was challenged before this Court by way of CWP(T) No. 27 of 2008 and other connected matters. In the meantime, the respondent-Board has issued another Office Order on 15.05.2003 vide Annexure P­8/1. The text of letter, dated 15.05.2003 reads as under: “In continuation to this office order No.16/HPSEB(Sectt)/2002, dated 14.3.2002 endorsed vide No. HPSEB(Sectt)/Scale-1 -1/2002-143812- 143032 Dated 14.3.2002, the H.P. State Electricity Board is pleased to order that Assistant Engineer/Assistant Executive Engineer (AMIE holders), who were initially appointed on the post of Junior Engineer in the Board and subsequently promoted as Assistant Engineer against the AMIE quota or appointed as Assistant Engineer against the direct recruitment in the Board may be offered an opportunity to exercise option to avail the benefit of 9/16 years Time bound Promotional scales either in the grade of Junior Engineer or Assistant Engineer/Assistant Executive Engineer. In the eventuality of exercising of said option, the benefits already availed by such officers in the grade of Junior Engineer shall be withdrawn. All other terms and conditions as contained in this Office Order No. 16, dated 14.3.2002 shall however, remain the same.” 6. This Court has allowed the CWP (T) No. 27 of 2008 and other connected cases on 23.12.2009 and the Note appended to Para No. 2 on 14.03.2002, was struck down. The respondent- Board went in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This Court has allowed the CWP (T) No. 27 of 2008 and other connected cases on 23.12.2009 and the Note appended to Para No. 2 on 14.03.2002, was struck down. The respondent- Board went in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P. on 15.07.2011. The respondent-Board again sought options, by confining it only to AE/AEE (AMIE) on 24.11.2009, within a period of three months from the date of issuance of the order. One of the petitioners, i.e., petitioner No. 5 has made a representation for the redressal of his grievance on 14.10.2011. The same was rejected by the Board on 3 1. 10.2011. 7. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, has vehemently argued that insertion of Notes vide Annexure P-8/ 1, dated 15.05.2003, Annexure P-8/2, dated 24.11.2009 and the rejection of the representation, dated 31.10.2011, is wrong, illegal, arbitrary, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He then contended that despite two judgments, rendered by this Court in CWP No. 1847 of 1993, dated 13.12.1994 and CWP(T) No. 27 of 2008 and connected maters, dated 23.12.2009, the respondent-Board has confined the option as per office order, dated 15.05.2003 to AE/AEE (AMIE). Thereafter, again on 24.11.2009, it has been confined to AE/AEE (AMIE). He then argued that all the Assistant Engineers form a homogeneous class and there could not be any further classification only on the basis that Junior Engineers possessing AMIE have been promoted as Assistant Engineers against AMIE quota. He further contended that the petitioners being Assistant Engineers, were also required to be given option to avail the benefit of 9/16 years time bound promotional scales either in the grade of Junior Engineer or Assistant Engineer/Assistant Executive Engineer at par with AE/AEE(AMIE), on the basis of office orders, dated 15.05.2003 and 24.11.2009. He also argued that in case the petitioners had been given option at par with AE/AEE(AMIE), they were to be given revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and their pension was also liable to be revised. 8. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the petitioners are not entitled to be treated at par with AE/AEE(AMIE). He also relied upon Annexure RJ/ 1, dated 21.12.2000, to contend that the petitioners are not entitled to be treated at par with AE/AEE (AMIE). 9. 8. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the petitioners are not entitled to be treated at par with AE/AEE(AMIE). He also relied upon Annexure RJ/ 1, dated 21.12.2000, to contend that the petitioners are not entitled to be treated at par with AE/AEE (AMIE). 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 10. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove, is that petitioners are working as Assistant Engineers. They are discharging exactly the same duties which are being discharged by AE/AEE(AMIE). They are transferable against each other. They shoulder same responsibilities. The Assistant Engineers are promoted within their own quota separately prescribed for AMIE holders and diploma holders. Once they have been promoted from the respective quotas, they are integrated into one cadre of Assistant Engineers. The purpose of giving time bound benefit of promotional scales is to remove stagnation and also to improve public service. The underlying purpose cannot be defeated by denying the time bound benefit of promotion scales only to one category. The petitioners are also entitled to the benefit which has been granted to the AE/AEE(AMIE). The respondent- Board has substituted the Note which was appearing below Para-2 of Office Order No. 14, as extracted hereinabove on 29.10.1993, whereby the benefit was confined only to AE/AEE(AMIE). This Note was struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1847 of 1993, decided on 13.12.1994. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under: “From the aforesaid, it is obvious that the Scheme as originally formulated and introduced by Order dated 31.1.1991 (Annexure P.2) granted the benefit of time bound- promotions to the Assistant Engineers irrespective of their educational qualification and irrespective of their mode of appointment, that is why the Diploma Holders, like the petitioner No. 2, were also granted the said benefit. It is equally clear that the purpose of amendment vide Annexure P.5 is to deny Diploma Holder Assistant Engineers the benefit of the promotional Scheme. It is also clear that those Assistant Engineers (Diploma Holders) who have already been granted the benefit of the said Scheme will now be required to refund the benefits and be down-graded in the scale in future. It is also clear that those Assistant Engineers (Diploma Holders) who have already been granted the benefit of the said Scheme will now be required to refund the benefits and be down-graded in the scale in future. As far as withdrawal of benefits from Diploma Holders who have already been granted the same, it is sufficient to observe that the same cannot be done without observing the principles of natural justice. In this connection the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1994 S.C. 2480 be noticed wherein it has been laid down that reduction of pay with retrospective effect without giving to employee concerned an opportunity to show cause, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. This, according to the Supreme Court, is the requirement of principles of natural justice as also fair play in action. It is not the case of the respondent that they have given any notice to any Diploma Holder Engineers before issuing Annexure P-5. Under the circumstances, the order cannot have the effect of withdrawing the benefits from persons who have already been granted the same. The question requiring our serious consideration is whether the respondents have any authority to issue an order like Annexure P-1 and apply the same with retrospective effect. As far as statutes are concerned, it is the cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made have retrospective effect. The decisions of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Rameshwar Rathod, AIR 1990 SC 1849 , Mithilesh Kumari Vs. Prem Bahadue Khare, AIR 1989 SC 1247 and Arjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 DV 703, are some of the cases decided by the Supreme Court laying down the aforesaid legal principles. It is also equally well settled that provision which affect a right in existence at the time of passing of the statute is not to be applied retrospectively in the absence of express enactment or necessary intendment. The decisions quoted aforesaid also lay down that every statute which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation or imposes a new duty or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions already past, must be presumed to be intended not to have retrospective effect. The decisions quoted aforesaid also lay down that every statute which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation or imposes a new duty or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions already past, must be presumed to be intended not to have retrospective effect. As far as vested existing rights are concerned, the statute cannot affect them. But these are the principles applicable to a statute and not to an administrative order. The impugned order has not been passed under any statutory provision and hence its legality or efficacy cannot be judged on the basis of the aforesaid legal principles. No decision of any Court has been brought to our notice which may justify application of the aforesaid legal principles to administrative orders. Under the circumstances, it must be held that administrative order cannot affect existing rights and for that reason cannot be given retrospective effect. In this connection the decision of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Tikamdas, (1975) 2 Supreme Court Cases 100, and Union of India Vs. Madan Gopal, AIR 1954 SC 158 , deserve special mention. Tikam Dass case (Supra) dealt with the rule making authority of the State Government and held that “there is no doubt that unlike legislation made by a sovereign Legislature, subordinate legislation made by a delegate cannot have retrospective effect unless the rule making power in the concerned statute expressly or by necessary implication confers power in this behalf. If this be the law in relation to exercise of statutory power, the rule against retrospectivity will apply with greater force in case of administrative orders. Then even if it is to be assumed that administrative orders can also, in law, have retrospective effect, there is nothing in Annexure P-5 to justify an inference that it intends to take away the rights already granted. Indeed, the order only substitutes the note without intending that its effect will be as if it was there from the date of the original order. Under the circumstances, we have no doubt that the substituted note cannot take away or withdraw the benefits already granted by the respondent-Board to its employees, pursuance to the Scheme in Annexurees P.1 and P.2. The next important question is whether the impugned note in its application in future is arbitrary and discriminatory? Under the circumstances, we have no doubt that the substituted note cannot take away or withdraw the benefits already granted by the respondent-Board to its employees, pursuance to the Scheme in Annexurees P.1 and P.2. The next important question is whether the impugned note in its application in future is arbitrary and discriminatory? It is common ground that Assistant Engineers are appointed by direct recruitment as also by promotion. Once they are integrated in the cadre of Assistant Engineers, persons drawn from both the sources performs same functions, shoulder similar responsibilities and are put in the same pay scale. The stagnation is equally shared by the Assistant Engineers recruited from both the sources. Once the appointees from two sources are integrated, as aforesaid, it will require something more to make a distinction between them. Nothing whatsoever has been brought to our notice so as to justify the aforesaid distinction. The purpose of the Scheme is to avoid stagnation by granting a higher pay scale. Since the stagnation is relevant to both the categories, the classification has no rational nexus with the aforesaid object. Such a classification is not permissible in law and must for that reason be held to be violaitive of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We also see yet another discrimination in case the impugned order is allowed to operate prospectively. In such a situation, the Diploma Holder Assistant Engineers who have already got the benefit of the time bound promotion schame would continue to enjoy the same but others, like petitioner No. 3, would be denied. In this process, there will be classification within the Diploma Holder Assistant Engineers as well as which is not intended by the impugned order. Clearly, therefore, the impugned order does not even satisfy the test of reasonableness and for that reason deserves to be quashed. The petition consequently succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order Annexure P-5 is hereby quashed. As a consequence the Scheme contained in Annexure P-2 will apply to all the Assistant Engineers irrespective of their educational qualifications. No costs.” 11.The respondent-Board, in its own wisdom, has implemented the judgment rendered on 13.12.1994 vide Annexure P-6, dated 03.05.1995. Thereafter, there was no discrimination between the two groups, i.e., Junior Engineers Diploma Holders promoted Assistant Engineers and Assistant Engineers promoted on the basis of their qualification, i.e., AMIE. No costs.” 11.The respondent-Board, in its own wisdom, has implemented the judgment rendered on 13.12.1994 vide Annexure P-6, dated 03.05.1995. Thereafter, there was no discrimination between the two groups, i.e., Junior Engineers Diploma Holders promoted Assistant Engineers and Assistant Engineers promoted on the basis of their qualification, i.e., AMIE. Thereafter, the Board has issued revised pay Regulations in the year 1998 vide Annexure P-7 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. There was no discrimination in these two groups, whereby the 1st TBPS of ‘3000-5600/- was revised to ‘12500-17150/- and the 2nd TBPS of ‘4500-6300/- was revised to ‘15350-21600/-. 12. The respondent-Board, despite the definitive law laid down by this Court, whereby earlier Note appended to Para 2 on 21.10.1993 was struck down, has again re-inserted Note in Para-2 on 14.03.2002 by dividing the homogeneous class, i.e., Assistant Engineers. The validity of this Note was also assailed by filing CWP No. 27 of 2008 and other connected matters. It was struck down again by this Court on 23.12.2009. The S.L.P. preferred against the judgment, dated 23.12.2009 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 15.07.2011. The respondent-Board, in the meantime, has also issued another Office Order on 15.05.2003, i.e., Annexure P-8/ 1, whereby the option was restricted to AE/AEE(AMIE). This option was not asked for from the petitioners. In case the petitioners had been given this option, they would have exercised the option to avail the benefit of 9/16 years time bound promotional scales either in the grade of Junior Engineer or Assistant Engineer/Assistant Executive Engineer. The respondent-Board has further issued office order on 24.11.2009, whereby the option was sought from Assistant Engineers AMIEs within a period of three months. 13. The Court is of the considered view that once the validity of such like Notes has been struck down by this Court in CWP No. 13.12.1994, the same should not have been again re­inserted. It is contemptuous on the part of the respondent-Board to do so. 14.The petitioners and AE/AEE(AMIE) constitute a homogeneous class. It is settled law that the classification must be based on intelligible differentia and there has to be a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The purpose of granting time bound benefit of promotional scales is to remove stagnation in the cadre and to improve public service as well and it cannot be confined to AE/AEE (AMIE) alone. The purpose of granting time bound benefit of promotional scales is to remove stagnation in the cadre and to improve public service as well and it cannot be confined to AE/AEE (AMIE) alone. Thus, the time bound benefit of promotional scales cannot be confined to one class, i.e., AMIE Assistant Engineers. 15. The respondent-Board has tried to treat the equals as un-equals. The whole exercise undertaken by the respondent- Board by inserting the Notes below Para-2 and also by separate notifications on 15.05.2003 and 24.11.2009, was arbitrary and unreasonable. 16. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the petitions are barred by delay and laches, more particularly, when the petitioners have retired. The present lis has started when the Note was inserted below Para-2 on 29.10.1993. This litigation has come to an end on 13.12.1994, when CWP No. 1847 of 1993 was allowed. Thereafter, there was no discrimination till the same type of Note was inserted in Para-2 on 14.03.2002. The validity of this Note was challenged before this Court by way of CWP(T) No. 27 and other connected matters. The same was allowed by this Court on 23.12.2009. The S.L.P. preferred against the judgment, dated 23.12.2009, was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 15.07.2011. One of the petitioners has already made a representation on 14.10.2011, which was rejected on 31.10.2011. In this case, since the petitioners’ option was not sought, they were getting less pay in comparison to AE/AEE(AMIE) and the cause of action has arisen to them on every month, when they were being paid less salary and less pension due to the fact that their options were not sought for at par with AE/AEE(AMIE). In view of this, it cannot be said that there is any delay or laches in filing the present petition. The judgments rendered by this Court in CWP No. 1847 of 1993 and CWP (T) No. 27 of 2008 and other connected matters were in rem and not in personam, as argued by Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate, for the respondent-Board. Once the legal issues have been settled by this Court in CWP No. 1847 of 1993 and CWP(T) No. 27 of 2008, it was not open for the respondent-Board to deny the benefits to the petitioners. The endeavour of the respondent-Board should always be to reduce litigation instead of multiplying it. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate, for the respondent-Board. Once the legal issues have been settled by this Court in CWP No. 1847 of 1993 and CWP(T) No. 27 of 2008, it was not open for the respondent-Board to deny the benefits to the petitioners. The endeavour of the respondent-Board should always be to reduce litigation instead of multiplying it. The respondent-Board ought to have done the needful after the definitive law laid down by this Court in the abovecited judgments instead of compelling the petitioners to approach this Court. The petitioners have retired and the action of the respondents has caused financial loss and mental agony to the petitioners. 17.This Court now will take Note of one very important fact. The case of the respondent-Board as per the reply filed initially, was that the petitioners have opted for higher pay scale of ‘2000-3500/- without exercising the option for TBPS. However, this stand was found to be false and in the rejoinder, the respondents have tendered apology. The respondent-Board ought not to have taken a plea which was not available as per the official record. The pleadings must be based on true facts, more particularly, since the writ petitions are decided only on the basis of affidavits. 18. The representation made by one of the petitioners, i.e., petitioner No. 5 has also been rejected on 31.10.2011 without taking into consideration the judgments rendered by this Court, as stated hereinabove. 19. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate has strenuously relied upon Annexure RJ/ 1, dated 21.12.2000. Suffice it to say that this Annexure supports the case of the petitioners. There is a specific mention that the benefit of 9/16 years time bound promotional scales is to be granted only once in one induction post in the entire service career, therefore, the benefit of 9/16 years time bound promotional scales already availed of was to be adjusted for the purpose of granting them 9/16 years benefit in the next higher post in accordance with the High Court decision. The respondent-Board could not be oblivious to the High Court decision. This decision has been rendered by this Court in CWP No. 1847 of 1993 on 13.12.1994. The judgment of this Court in CWP No. 1847 of 1993 could not be diluted. The respondent-Board could not be oblivious to the High Court decision. This decision has been rendered by this Court in CWP No. 1847 of 1993 on 13.12.1994. The judgment of this Court in CWP No. 1847 of 1993 could not be diluted. There are specific words used in the Office Order, dated 21.12.2000 that the benefit was to be adjusted in the next higher post in accordance with the High Court’s decision. 20. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent-Board has also argued that as far as CWP No. 5424 of 2012 is concerned, the writ petition is not maintainable. In this case, the petitioner was initially appointed as Sectional Officer (Electrical). The nomenclature of this post was changed to Junior Engineer. He was also promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 22.02.1986 w.e.f. 27.07.1978. He was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on February, 1994. Since the petitioner in this case has been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, the observations and discussions made hereinabove in CWP No. 11097 of 2011 would be attracted and he would be entitled also to the same relief. 21. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate, for the respondent-Board has also argued that CWP No. 2901 of 2012 is not maintainable. According to him, earlier the petitioner was working as Draughtsman. According to the pleadings, the petitioner joined the respondent-Board as Draughtsman on 23.08.1965 and was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 0 1.09.1988. He retired as AEE on 3 1.10.2005. Once, he has been inducted in the cadre of Assistant Engineers, he could also not be discriminated against by the respondent-Board. The principles discussed hereinabove in CWP No. 11097 of 2011 would also be attracted in this case as well. 22. In view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, the writ petitions are allowed. The words “(AMIE Holders)” appearing in the 5th line and the words “against the AMIE quota” in 7th line appearing in Office Order No. 29, dated 15.05.2003, Annexure P-8/ 1, are struck down after applying the principle of severability. 22. In view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, the writ petitions are allowed. The words “(AMIE Holders)” appearing in the 5th line and the words “against the AMIE quota” in 7th line appearing in Office Order No. 29, dated 15.05.2003, Annexure P-8/ 1, are struck down after applying the principle of severability. The respondent-Board is further directed to permit the petitioners to exercise option to avail the benefit of 9/16 years time bound promotional scales either in the grade of Junior Engineer or Assistant Engineer/Assistant Executive Engineer made available to AE/AEE (AMIE holders) vide Office Order Annexure P-8/1, dated 15.05.2003 and Office Order, Annexure P-8/2, dated 24.11.2009 and thereafter to release the arrears of salary and revise their pension within a period of twelve weeks. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.