JUDGMENT : R. Subramanian, J. 1. This Intra Court Appeal at the instance of the appellants challenges the order of the learned Single Judge made in WP No.7383 of 2017, wherein, the appellants' prayer for issue of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to continue the petitioners in service till they reach the age of 60 years, pay salary and other benefits including pensionary benefits on par with the other employees working in the respondent Corporation. 2. The facts that led to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows: The appellants were working in various capacities in Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd., which is a Company fully owned by the General Insurance Corporation of India and its four subsidiaries. The General Insurance Corporation of India and its subsidiaries were nationalized by enactment of General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. The seven Insurance Companies which were subscribers/share holders of Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd., were amalgamated with the General Insurance Corporation and its subsidiaries by virtue of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. However, the Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd., continued to be an independent entity. On 27.05.1998, the Central Government issued a notification altering the age of retirement of the employees of the General Insurance Industry, covering all the nationalised Insurance Companies from 58 to 60. The Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd., which was the subsidiary of the Insurance Companies, continued to retain 58 as the age of retirement of its employees, despite the change having been made by the Government, in respect of the employees of the General Insurance Industry. 3. A Scheme of Amalgamation was proposed in order to merge the Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd., with the General Insurance Corporation of India. The said Scheme of Amalgamation, among other things provided for transfer of employees from Loss Prevention Association of India Limited to the other General Insurance Companies, viz. General Insurance Corporation of India (GIC), National Insurance Company Limited (NIC), the New India Assurance Company Limited (NIA), the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (OIC) and United India Insurance Company Limited (UIIC). The said Scheme of Amalgamation, among other things provided for transfer of employees from Loss Prevention Association of India Limited to the other General Insurance Companies, viz. General Insurance Corporation of India (GIC), National Insurance Company Limited (NIC), the New India Assurance Company Limited (NIA), the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (OIC) and United India Insurance Company Limited (UIIC). Clause 9 of the Scheme of Amalgamation, which provides for transfer of employees, reads as follows: "On the Scheme becoming effective, the services of the workmen and employees of the Transferor Company (LPA) in service on the Effecting Dates shall stand transferred to (1) GIC, (2) NIC, (3) NIA, (4) OIC and (5) UIIC as set out in Annexure-I, Annexure-II, Annexure-III, Annexure-IV and Annexure-V respectively. The terms and conditions on which such employees whose services shall stand transferred (hereinafter referred to as the Transferred Employees are as set out in each of the Annexure-I, Annexure-II, Annexure-III, Annexure-IV and Annexure-V above. Upon the Scheme becoming effective, the services of the Transferred Employees shall stand transferred to GIC, NIC, NIA, OIC and UIIC, as provided herein above on such terms and conditions which shall continue to apply to such transferred employees though such terms and conditions may be at variance with the terms and conditions of the existing employees of each of GIC, NIC, NIA, OIC and UIIC." 4. This Scheme of Amalgamation was approved by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, by an order dated 27.04.2007. Pursuant to the said order of approving the amalgamation, the United India Insurance Company Ltd., viz. the 2nd respondent herein, issued letters offering appointment to the employees of the Loss Prevention Association of India Limited. All these letters specifically stated that the age of superannuation, would be 58 years (as is specified in annexure) and the offers of appointment also required the employee to indicate his/her acceptance by signing the said letter and returning it to the Company. It is not in dispute that all the appellants who had been given the offer of appointment have signed the acceptance also. 5. Annexure V to the order sanctioning amalgamation made by the Bombay High Court also lists out, 16 employees. The terms and conditions of the employment have been set out in the said annexure and the same forms part of the order of the Bombay High Court. 5. Annexure V to the order sanctioning amalgamation made by the Bombay High Court also lists out, 16 employees. The terms and conditions of the employment have been set out in the said annexure and the same forms part of the order of the Bombay High Court. It is thereafter, realising that the regular employees of the General Insurance Companies retire at the age of 60, whereas, the appellants who have transferred to the Insurance Companies, by virtue of the Amalgamation Order had to retire at the age of 58, the appellants seem to have raised the issue before the concerned Authorities. It is seen that certain recommendations have also been made for increasing the age of retirement of the employees of the Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd., who have been transferred to the General Insurance Companies, pursuant to the amalgamation. It is also seen that the General Insurance Corporation had in fact passed a resolution to enhance the age of retirement of the employees, who have transferred from the Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd., from 58 to 60, but it is stated at the bar that the said resolution was withdrawn, in view of the fact that it is for the Central Government to fix the age of retirement and not for the Company to pass a resolution on it. Claiming that the retention of the age of 58 as the age of retirement only for those employees, who have been transferred from the Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd., would amount to discrimination amongst equals the appellants have approached this Court with the Writ Petition with the prayer as stated supra. 6. The said Writ Petition was resisted by the respondents contending that the appellants had in fact accepted the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment and they had agreed for the age of retirement to be fixed at 58 as it was the age of retirement in the parent Company viz. Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd. The appellants cannot now seek a Mandamus, directing the respondents to increase the age of retirement from 58 to 60. Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd. The appellants cannot now seek a Mandamus, directing the respondents to increase the age of retirement from 58 to 60. It is also contended by the respondents that once the Company Court, while deciding on the amalgamation had fixed the age of retirement of these employees at 58, this Court cannot sit in the judgment over the said order of the Company Court, passed in the Amalgamation proceedings and direct the successor Companies to allow the appellants to work till the age of 60. 7. We have heard Mr.N.G.R.Prasad learned counsel appearing for M/s.Row & Reddy, for the appellants, Mrs. Chitra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.T.S.Baskaran, for the 1st respondent and Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.V.Perumal, for the 2nd Respondent. 8. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that the action of the respondents in attempting to retain the age of 58 as the age of superannuation for only handful employees, who have been transferred from Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd., would amount to discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank, Bangalore v. M.S.Jasra and others, reported in 1992 (2) SCC 484 , wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upon a consideration of the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the Schemes framed under Section 45(5)(i) of the said Act for Amalgamation of Banks held that the rights of the employees would be governed by the proviso (ii) and accordingly, they would be entitled to terms and conditions of service on par with the existing employees of the transferee Bank and the same would be applicable to respondent also and he cannot claim 60 years as his superannuation age, as was applicable to employees of the transferor Bank. In the said case, when employees of the transferor Bank viz. the Lakshmi Commercial Bank were transferred to Canara Bank on its amalgamation with Canara Bank, the question arose as to whether they would be entitled to claim that their age of superannuation would be 60, which was the age of superannuation under the relevant Service Rules of Lakshmi Commercial Bank and the same cannot be reduced to 58. the Lakshmi Commercial Bank were transferred to Canara Bank on its amalgamation with Canara Bank, the question arose as to whether they would be entitled to claim that their age of superannuation would be 60, which was the age of superannuation under the relevant Service Rules of Lakshmi Commercial Bank and the same cannot be reduced to 58. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while rejecting the contention concluded that the provisions of the scheme would prevail and on an interpretation of the provisions of the Scheme for Amalgamation of Lakshmi Commercial Bank with Canara Bank, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the age of superannuation in Canara Bank is 58 years, the employee cannot claim to retire at the age of 60. That was in fact a converse case. 9. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel would also draw our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S.Yadav and Another v. Chief Manager, Central Bank of India and Others, reported in 1987 (3) SCC 120 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the effect of the Officers, who have joined the services of the Bank, prior to the Bank Nationalisation and the challenge was to the Rule, which fixed the age of retirement at 60 years for those who had joined the services prior to 19th July 1969 and 58 years for those, who had joined the services after 19th July 1969. In fact the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld such classification and held that the same is not in violation of either Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Western India Match Company Ltd., v. Workmen, reported in 1974 (3) SCC 330 , Mr.N.G.R.Prasad would contend that the terms of employment specified in standing order should prevail over corresponding terms in contract of service in existence on the enforcement of the standing order. He would also draw our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. And another v. Broja Nath Ganguly and another, reported in AIR 1986 SCC 1571, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the Rule that provides for termination of services of permanent employees by giving notice or pay in lieu of notice period is opposed to public policy and violative of Article 14. 11. 11. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, would also invite our attention to the Rationalisation scheme, which provides for Rationalisation and Revision of pay scales and other conditions of service for supervisory, clerical and subordinate staff in General Insurance Corporation and contend that in view of the same, it is only the Rule framed under the said scheme that would apply employees of the Insurance Corporations and hence according to Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, the Corporation cannot contend that the employees, who were transferred from the Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd., will have to retire at the age of 58, whereas the regular employees of the Insurance Industry will retire at the age of 60. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, would further rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oswal Agro Furane Ltd. and another v. Oswal Agro Furane Workers Union and Others, reported in 2005 (3) SCC 224 , wherein, it was held that the mandatory requirements of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be waived and there cannot be a compromise against the provisions of the Act. Drawing an analogy Mr.N.G.R.Prasad would contend that the agreements or the offers of appointment that were issued to the employees of Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd., specifying their age of retirement will be 58 is opposed to the general retirement age of 60 as provided in the Rules of the Corporation would amount to contracting outside the Rules or in violation of the Rules and therefore, the said contracts are not valid. 12. Per contra, Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, viz. United India Insurance Company would contend that employment is a matter of contract and the employees of the Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd., were transferred to the 2nd respondent, viz. United India Insurance Company Ltd, upon orders passed by the Bombay High Court in its ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, approving a proposed Scheme of Amalgamation. United India Insurance Company would contend that employment is a matter of contract and the employees of the Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd., were transferred to the 2nd respondent, viz. United India Insurance Company Ltd, upon orders passed by the Bombay High Court in its ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, approving a proposed Scheme of Amalgamation. Pointing out that the Scheme of Amalgamation itself provides that the employees will be continued to be governed by the service conditions as it existed in Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd., even if such conditions of service or at variance with the conditions of service of United India Insurance Company Ltd., as well as the fact that the offer of employment was made to each employee with a specific condition that his/her age of superannuation will be 58 or 60, depending upon their date of joining in service and the fact that each one of them have signed the said offer of appointment signifying their acceptance to the conditions laid down there under. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel would vehemently contend that the appellants cannot now seek the Court to rewrite the contract between the parties. He would also draw our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. S.S.Srivastava and others, reported in 1988 (Supp) SCC 1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had recognized a prescription of different age of retirement for different clause of employees in Life Insurance Corporation of India. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had upheld the Rule 19(2) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1960, which provides for different age of retirement for different groups of employees. 13. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel would further contend that once such Scheme of Amalgamation was approved by the concerned High Court, then the scheme is binding on the employees of the Company, which is amalgamated also. In support of his contention, Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s.J.K.(Bombay) Private Ltd v. M/s.New Kaiser-I-Hind Spinning and Weaving Co., Ltd., and others, reported in AIR 1970 SCC 1041. In support of his contention, Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s.J.K.(Bombay) Private Ltd v. M/s.New Kaiser-I-Hind Spinning and Weaving Co., Ltd., and others, reported in AIR 1970 SCC 1041. Drawing our attention to the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court "...........The principle is that a scheme sanctioned by the court does not operate as a mere agreement between the parties: it becomes binding on the company, the creditors and the shareholders and has statutory force, and therefore, the joint-debtor could not invoke the principle of accord and satisfaction. By virtue of the provisions of sec. 391 of the Act, a scheme is statutorily binding even on creditors, and shareholders who dissented from or opposed to its being sanctioned. It has statutory force in that sense and therefore cannot be altered except with the sanction of the Court even if the shareholders and the creditors acquiesce in such alteration........" Mr.A.L.Somayaji, would contend that the Scheme of Amalgamation once sanctioned by the High Court in binding on all concerned and if it all any alternation is to be effected it has to be again sanctioned by the Court and the appellants ought to have moved the Company Court at Bombay, seeking or objecting to the Scheme of Amalgamation sanctioned and seeking modification thereof. In the absence of such procedure having been adopted, this Court cannot issue a Mandamus, which would run counter to the Scheme of Amalgamation, passed by the Bombay High Court. 14. Countering Mr.N.G.R.Prasad's submission on Sections 25-O and 25-N, Mr.A.L.Somayaji would point out that 25-O and 25-N are statutory provisions, whereas the Rules providing age of retirement is determined by the Rationalisation Scheme of the year 1974 and the very same scheme provides that it will not apply to persons, who are employed under specific contracts of employment. Pointing out the provision in Rule 2, which deals with application of the provisions of the Scheme, Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel would contend that the judgment in Oswal Agro Furane Ltd. case, reported in 2005 (3) SCC 224 , cited supra, will not apply to the facts of the present case. Pointing out the provision in Rule 2, which deals with application of the provisions of the Scheme, Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel would contend that the judgment in Oswal Agro Furane Ltd. case, reported in 2005 (3) SCC 224 , cited supra, will not apply to the facts of the present case. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel would also draw our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of Central Bank of India and others v. Madan Chandra Brahma and Another, reported in 2007 (8) SCC 294 , wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had upheld the fixation of the age of retirement had 60 for officers recruited before 1969 and 58 for those who recruited after the said date. In the said case, the respondent, was working in the Purbanchal Bank, which was merged with the Central Bank of India on 29.08.1990. The facts of the said case are as follows: The 1st respondent was originally employed in Gauhati Bank, the age of superannuation in Gauhati Bank was 58 years, the Gauhati Bank was merged with Purbanchal Bank, wherein also the age of retirement was 58 years, subsequently on 29.0981990, the Purbanchal Bank merged with Central Bank of India, under a Scheme of Amalgamation, under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the appellant bank on 06.05.1991 in terms of Clause 11 of the Scheme of Amalgamation, fixed the pay and other service conditions of the officers and employees of the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank and made the Central Bank of India Service Regulations, 1991, applicable to them with effect from 01.04.1991. On 17.07.1992, the appellant Bank informed the respondent No.1 that he would be reaching the age of superannuation on 01.08.1992, i.e. 58 years on 01.08.1992. The respondent sought to dispute his date of birth recorded with the Bank. That apart he also claimed that he would retire not on attaining the age of 58 years but only on attaining the age of 60 years, as per Regulation 19 of the Central Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. The appellant Bank did not accept the said stand and retired him on attaining the age of 58 years. That apart he also claimed that he would retire not on attaining the age of 58 years but only on attaining the age of 60 years, as per Regulation 19 of the Central Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. The appellant Bank did not accept the said stand and retired him on attaining the age of 58 years. This was challenged by the employee and the employee had contended that as per the Regulation No.19 of the Central Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979, an officer/employee of the appellant Bank recruited prior to 19.07.1969 would retire on completion of 60 years of age, whereas, an employee recruited on or after the said date would retire on completion the age of 58 years. The appellant Bank took the plea that since the Respondent 1 became its employee after 19.07.1969 and must be taken to be an employee recruited after 19.07.1969 thus the claim of the employee was not sustainable. The Division Bench of the High Court took the view that the Clauses 1 & 2 the Regulations, 1979, would apply and held that the employee would retire only on attaining the age of 60 years. This was challenged by the Bank and allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the worker having been appointed as the employee of the Central Bank of India after 19.07.1969, only those regulations would apply to him and therefore, he will have to retire at the age of 58 years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also relied upon the Judgment in B.S.Yadhav v. Chief Manager, Central Bank of India, reported in 1987 (3) SCC 120 . 15. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Major R.N.Mathur, reported in 1997 (1) SCC 225 , to contend that the age mentioned in the appointment letter is binding. 16. We have considered the rival submissions. 15. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Major R.N.Mathur, reported in 1997 (1) SCC 225 , to contend that the age mentioned in the appointment letter is binding. 16. We have considered the rival submissions. Though, Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would make a fervent plea that the action of the Insurance Company in attempting to retire the employees, who have transferred from Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd., to 58, while retaining its own employees till the age of 60 would amount to violation of principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, we are unable to countenance the said submission of Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Our reasons are as follows: 17. The appellants cannot claim equality with the workers of the United India Insurance Company Ltd. After all fundamental rights are subject to reasonable restrictions. Different Clauses of employees cannot be treated alike. In fact the Hon’ble Supreme Court had recognized the right of the managements to have different age of retirement for different sets of employees in Life Insurance Corporation of India s case cited supra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s.J.K.(Bombay) Private Ltd.’s case cited supra, had categorically pointed out that the Scheme of Amalgamation, sanctioned by the Court will be binding on all and will have a statutory force. In the case on hand, the Scheme of Amalgamation approved by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, would show that the age of retirement of the some of the employees has been pegged at 58. The Scheme of Amalgamation provides that the transfer of services of the employees will be on such terms and conditions, which shall continue to apply to such transferred employees, though such terms and conditions may be at variance with the terms and conditions of the existing employees of each of the General Insurance Companies. 18. We also find on fact, from the offers of appointment made to each and every one of the appellants that they have been clearly informed that their age of superannuation would be 58 and all of them have accepted such conditions and had entered into the service of the concerned Insurance Companies. 18. We also find on fact, from the offers of appointment made to each and every one of the appellants that they have been clearly informed that their age of superannuation would be 58 and all of them have accepted such conditions and had entered into the service of the concerned Insurance Companies. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel attempted to equate the case of the appellants with that of the employees of Nationalised Banks by relying upon the Judgment in Canara Bank, Bangalore v. M.S. Jasra and others, reported in 1992 (2) SCC 484 . The same cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that a Scheme of Amalgamation of a Bank is a Statutory Scheme, which takes place under the Provisions of Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act and the decision in Canara Bank, turned purely on the interpretation of Section 45 (5)(i) and proviso (ii) to the said Section. It had nothing to do with the contract of employment between the employer and the employee. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that in view of the Regulations as well as the provisions in the Scheme of Amalgamation, the claim of the employee that he should be continued in service till he attains the age of 60 years, which was the age of retirement in the Lakshmi Commercial Bank, which was amalgamated with the Canara Bank under the Scheme cannot be sustained. However, in Central Bank of India and others v. Madan Chandra Brahma and Another, cited supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had pointed out that the employee cannot claim that he should be retained in service till the age of 60, as applicable to the employees of the Central Bank of India. 19. As rightly pointed out by Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, the terms of employment would definitely prevail more so when the Regulations themselves make it clear that the Regulations will not apply to persons, who have been appointed under specific contracts of employment. Having accepted the age of retirement, as prescribed in the offers of appointment, the appellants in our considered opinion cannot now seek to go back and claim that they are entitled to be retained in service till they attained the age of 60 years. Having accepted the age of retirement, as prescribed in the offers of appointment, the appellants in our considered opinion cannot now seek to go back and claim that they are entitled to be retained in service till they attained the age of 60 years. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad s contention is that the contract of employment cannot run counter to the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act and it cannot be in violation of Article 14. In order to buttress his submission Mr.N.G.R.Prasad would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. And another, (cited supra), where the issue involved was whether the provision in the Rules, which enable the Corporation to discontinue the services of permanent employees by giving notice or pay was valid. In the light of the said challenge the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the employer cannot deprive the employees of the protection afforded by the Welfare statutes by entering into such contract of employment. 20. In the case on hand, the contract of employment springs out of a Scheme of Amalgamation, which was approved by the Court, and the Rules, viz. the Rationalisation Scheme 1974, enables the employer to enter into a contract and the Rules are made in applicable to such employees, who are engaged pursuant to such special contracts. Therefore, in our considered opinion the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. s case cannot be applied to the facts of this case. 21. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel would relying upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Western India Match Company Ltd., cited supra, would contend that the agreement, whether posterior or anterior cannot be inconsistent with the Standing Orders and such an agreement is not valid. According to MR.N.G.R.Prasad, once the age of retirement of the employees of the General Insurance Company Ltd. has been fixed at 60 even on 27.05.1998, the agreements entered into between the appellants and the Insurance Company, subsequently at the time of Amalgamation cannot be in derogation of the Standing Orders or the Rules, prescribing an age of retirement. This contention also will have to fail in view of the particular Clause in the Rationalisation Scheme, which makes the very Scheme inapplicable for those employees, who are appointed pursuant to specific contracts of employment. This contention also will have to fail in view of the particular Clause in the Rationalisation Scheme, which makes the very Scheme inapplicable for those employees, who are appointed pursuant to specific contracts of employment. As already pointed out these appellants were brought into the services of Insurance Company based on the Scheme of Amalgamation entered into between Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd., and the General Insurance Corporation. The scheme itself provides that their conditions of service would continue to apply de hors there being different conditions for service of the employees of the General Insurance Corporation. 22. In view of the above, we are unable to agree with the submissions of Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, that these appellants should also be treated on par with the employees of the United India Insurance Company Limited, viz. the 2nd respondent herein and their age of superannuation, should also be fixed at 60 years and not 58. In view of the above, we do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Hence the Writ Appeal is dismissed confirming the Order of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.