S. K. Mookherjee, J.: These Twelve appeals have been referred to 'the Full Bench in terms of Rule 1, Chapter VII of Part II of the Appellate Side Rules, as the referring Bench found itself unable to agree with the views of the earlier Division Bench of this Court. The point on which the difference arose related to the necessity of personal service of a mandatory order as distinct from prohibitory order. In the order of reference, the Division Bench, however, took note of an admitted factual position that the order, in the present case, was not personally served upon the contemnors, though they knew and were fully aware of the said order and took all possible legal and administrative steps to have the said order set aside and/or to make it infructuous. Since all the appeals have been referred to us, all points, including the above noted admitted factual position, have been treated as open for arguments by us.

2. The origin of the entire dispute may be traced to a notification issued by the State Government, dated 23rd February, 1983, whereby the employees of different Universities of West Bengal were proposed to be granted further additional dearness allowance like their counter-parts in Government employment at the rate in absolute amounts as was admissible to the Government employees on corresponding basic pay in terms of memorandum No. 11930F dated 23.11.82 in addition to existing dearness allowance/interim dearness allowance. We have purposely underlined the above portion as the dispute between the parties can be said to have its foundation in the interpretation of the words underlined above. From this Memorandum two other clauses are required to be quoted as follows:

"If the existing total DA elements (prior to 1.11.82) be in excess of the total DA element (prior to 1.11.82) of corresponding State Govt. employees, such excess should be adjusted against the amount of further A.DA admissible".

"The basic pay as mentioned above shall be the grade pay, drawn by the employees in their respective revised scales of pay and shall not include Special Pay, Deaners Pay, Personal Pay, Administrative Pay and any other categories of pay, if any, and except grade pay, provided that in the case of employees who have not opted for revised scales of pay, the basic pay will be grade pay plus Dearness Allowance as was being drawn by them on 31.3.70." The said memorandum was followed by another, dated 4th April, 1983, which enclosed a ready reckoner indicating the amounts of further Additional Dearness Allowance payable to the University employees, in terms of the earlier Memorandum. As the amounts, as shown in the ready reckoner, issued by the Government, were found by the University employees to be less than the amounts to which they thought themselves of be entitled, a number of writ applications were moved on which Civil orders were issued and such Civil orders, ultimately, had been heard out and disposed of, on 3rd September, 1984, by Mrs. P Khastagir, j. inter alia, quashing the ready reckoner on the grounds that there was no proper authentication of the said document, which had been issued under the signature of the Dy. Secretary, Education Department and not in the names of the Governor; that the ready reckoner could not modify or take away the amounts payable to the University employees under the original memorandum by mis-interpreting the terms "basic pay" now drawn"; and thirdly because the term 'absolute amounts' used in the said Memorandum, dated 23rd February, 1993, meant complete unconditional amount. Against the said order, appeals were preferred before the Division Bench and in connection therewith applications for stay had also been preferred. The Appeal Court, by its order dated 11th September, 1984, after finding that the propriety of quashing of the ready reckoner was to be decided at the final hearing of the appeal, directed the appellants to pay further dearness allowance to non-teaching University employees, in acc