Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The order, as contained in Annexure 4, and the subsequent order, as contained in Annexure 8, are under challenge, whereby and whereunder the respondents have decided to pay only Rs. 150/- per month as allowance for the work done by the petitioner as head-clerk and Rs. 250/-per month for the work as Office Superintendent. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the writ petitioner earlier had moved this Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 141 of 1998 for payment of pensionary benefit as well as 20% allowance for the work performed by him in addition to his own duties as head-clerk including Office Superintendent. 4. This Court having heard the counsel for the parties and considering the pleas taken by them disposed of the writ petition vide order as contained in Annexure 1 holding as follows:- "It is well established principle of law that if the delinquent has been allowed to discharge extra work in addition to his own duties, he is entitled to such allowance in terms of Rule 103 ot the Bihar Service Code . That apart, the authority himself has taken a decision to that effect and sanctioned for payment of 20% allowance to the petitioner during the period, in question, on account of performing extra duty in addition to his own. In that view of the matter, I direct the respondent authority to pay the 20% allowance for the work the petitioner has performed as Head Clerk as well as Office Superintendent during the period, in question and also annual increment which is entitled to the petitioner as per the question taken by the respondent authority...." 5. The respondents fifed a review application in Civil Review No. 127 of 1999 for modification of the order, as contained in Annexure 1. The review application was dismissed by this Court vide order, as contained in Annexure 2. Thereafter the respondents filed a Letters Patent Appeal before this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 233 of 2000. This Court after noticing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties dismissed the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal and held as follows:- "We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge in allowing the claim of the writ petitioner". This Court after noticing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties dismissed the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal and held as follows:- "We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge in allowing the claim of the writ petitioner". However, in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal their Lordships as a precautionary measure observed that the order passed by the learned Single Judge shall not be cited as a precedence in other cases. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents instead of allowing the claim of the petitioner, as referred to above, has issued the orders impugned asking him to refund the excess amount paid to him for the work done as Office Superintendent. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the orders passed by this Court, as referred to above, the respondents were duty bound to comply with the same and, accordingly, they were required to pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner in consonance with the direction. 7. The facts, which have been enumerated above, that the writ application was filed and thereafter a review application was filed and a Letters Patent Appeal was also filed, are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the L.P.A. Court affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. The order passed by the learned Single Judge, in that view of the matter, could have been complied with in its true term and spirit. The issuance of the order, as contained in Annexure 4, and the subsequent order, as contained in Annexure 8, in that view of the matter, must be held to be wholly without jurisdiction. 8. In the result and for the reasons aforementioned, this application is allowed and the orders, as contained in Annexures 4 and 8, are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to comply with the direction of this Court forthwith.