services came to be terminated with effect from 29.03.1985. The petitioners have, therefore, raised disputes, which came to be culminated into judgment and award dated 21.07.1998, directing reinstatement with continuity of service and 80% backwages. That award dated 21.07.1998, was assailed by the respondent Board in this Court by way of petition, which came to be dismissed by this Court, against which the Special Leave Petition was preferred by the respondents. The Supreme Court did not disturb the order of reinstatement, however, reduced the quantum of backwages from 80% to 40%. The petitioners were not given benefits and hence they had to raise dispute one more time, which came to be allowed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 30.03.2009, ordering similar benefits by treating them to be permanent on the establishment with all benefits of permanent employees and with arrears from 29.03.1985. The respondent Board assailed even this order before this Court by way of S.C.A. No.7880 of 2009 and allied matters. Initially while admitting the matters on 22.09.2009, this Court did not grant interim relief and hence the Board preferred Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No.483 of 2010 and allied matters. The Division Bench did not interfere with the order, but clarified the situation in the eventuality of the final outcome of the petition. On 23.07.2010, the petitioners were posted in the permanent establishment, as Junior Clerk, Class-III. As the petitioners perceived it to be non compliance with the order of the Court in Letters Patent Appeal, the present petitioners filed contempt petition being M.C.A. No.524 of 2011 before this Court, which was withdrawn. The clarification was filed, but that become infructuous
