ORDER 1. The contempt petition has been instituted for alleged non-compliance with the order of this Court dated 17 August 2018. 2. The order of this Court, insofar as is material, reads as follows: “Having heard Mr. Haresh Raichura, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the respondents, we are only inclined to modify the order of the High Court to the extent that the appellants shall be entitled to get retiral benefits after superannuation. If any one of the appellants was superannuated, he shall also get the same benefit. When we say ‘same benefit’, it means that the retiral benefits which were given to the other employees of the respondents shall also be extended to the appellants. The said exercise shall be completed within twelve weeks hence. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.” (Emphasis supplied) 3. Upon notice being issued, a counter affidavit and a rejoinder affidavit have been filed. The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants is that by the above order of this Court, the respondents were ordered to give retiral benefits to the applicants at par with the regular employees who have superannuated. This submission is buttressed by relying on the phrase ‘retiral benefits which were given to the other employees of the respondents’. 4. On the other hand Mr. K.M. Natraj, learned ASG submits that the order of the High Court denying regularization was not interfered with or modified by this Court. On the contrary, the only modification that was made was in regard to the grant of retiral benefits. The learned ASG submits that retiral benefits can be granted to the applicants consisting of the following three statutory benefits to which contingent/casual employees are entitled, namely: (a) Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (b) Statutory Provident Fund under the EPF & MP Act 1952 (c) Pension as admissible under the EPS-1995 Scheme. 5. By the order of this Court dated 5 July 2019, the decision of the High Court declining the relief of regularization was not interfered with. The order passed by the High Court was in the following terms: “(i) The respondents shall not terminate services of any of the petitioners till they crossed the age of superannuation. This is of course subject to any allegation of misconduct. The order passed by the High Court was in the following terms: “(i) The respondents shall not terminate services of any of the petitioners till they crossed the age of superannuation. This is of course subject to any allegation of misconduct. They would continue to be paid the wages at least at the same rate they are currently getting subject to any upward revision of daily wage structure that may be prescribed by ONGC. (ii) Upon their crossing the age of superannuation, the ONGC would pay such dues as may be legally payable to them. This direction shall be also applicable to those, who might have already ceased to be in service by virtue of crossing the age of superannuation or have expired. In view of disposal of the letters patent appeal, civil application does not survive. Hence, civil application is disposed of.” 6. The counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondents contains the following statement in paragraph 13: “13. That it is important to note here that after superannuation, the “Contingent/Casual” workers viz. similarly situated to the appellants with whom the appellants claimed parity are entitled for the following thee statutory benefits: (a) Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (b) Statutory Provident Fund as per EPF & MP Act 1952 (c) Pension as admissible under EPS-1995 Scheme.” This affidavit has been filed by the Chairman cum Managing Director of the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation. 7. From the above extract of the counter affidavit, it is evident that the plea of the respondents in regard to the entitlement of the applicants to the above three statutory benefits is on the basis of what retiral beneifts can be claimed by casual/contingent workers. These are benefits which the applicants would in any event have been entitled to under clause (ii) of the operative directions of the High Court extracted above. Evidently, the order of this Court modifying the directions of the High Court must be given purpose and meaning. The construction placed by the respondents will render the underlying purpose otiose. This Court by its order dated 17 August 2018 modified the order of the High Court by directing the payment of retiral dues at par with those “which were given to other employees of the respondents”. The construction placed by the respondents will render the underlying purpose otiose. This Court by its order dated 17 August 2018 modified the order of the High Court by directing the payment of retiral dues at par with those “which were given to other employees of the respondents”. Hence, on a fair reading of the order, the meaning that must be ascribed to those words is that the applicants would be entitled to retiral dues computed on the same basis as allowed to regular employees of the respondents. Hence, the dues which are payable to the applicants should be recomputed and payment on that basis should be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. 8. We, however, clarify that this does not amount to an adjudication on the rights and entitlements of contingent/casual workers, since the above directions are in exercise of the power conferred on this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. They are confined only to the applicants in the present case. 9. Since the dispute in the present case has turned on the interpretation of the order passed by this Court on 17 August 2018, we do not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to invoke the contempt jurisdiction. However, the respondents shall now comply with the above directions within the period stipulated. 10. The contempt petition is disposed of.