JUDGMENT : D.N. PATEL, J. I.A. No. 5805 of 2015 1. This interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 313 days in preferring the instant Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsel and looking to the reasons stated in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the interlocutory application, there are reasonable reasons for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. 3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5805 of 2015 is allowed and delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 535 of 2014 4. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 7th January, 2014 delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1394 of 2013 whereby the writ petition preferred by respondent no.1 has been allowed and it was held by the learned Single Judge that the respondent is entitled to the Leave Encashment. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge, original respondents-State have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 5. Having heard counsel for the respondents-State and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the question is about the applicability of the Circular dated 20th February, 1990, issued by the appellants so far entitlement of Leave Encashment to the respondent (original petitioner) is concerned, who has superannuated from service with effect from 01.02.2009 and who was working as Assistant Teacher from 03.11.1971 in the Minority Aided School. 6. It is further appears from the facts and arguments canvassed by the counsel for the State that the Division Bench of this Court has held in W.P. (S) No. 506 of 2013 with other allied writ petitions that the Circular dated 20th February, 1990 would be applicable to the respondent/petitioner as the Leave Encashment partakes the character of the salary. The said judgment is delivered by the Division Bench of this Court dated 3rd January, 2014. The said judgment is based upon the earlier two decisions rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2007 (4) JCR 1 (Jhr.) (FB) and another decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Another vs. Senior Higher Secondary School Lachhmangarh and Others, (2005) 10 SCC 346 . Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2007 (4) JCR 1 (Jhr.) (FB) and another decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Another vs. Senior Higher Secondary School Lachhmangarh and Others, (2005) 10 SCC 346 . S.L.P. preferred against the Division Bench order in W.P. (S) No. 506 of 2013 judgment dated 3rd January, 2014 has already been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court being Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 20606-20607 of 2014. This S.L.P. was dismissed vide order dated 15th December, 2014. 7. In view of the aforesaid decisions, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in deciding the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1394 of 2013 vide judgment and order dated 7th January, 2014 and we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal and the respondent is entitled to the Leave Encashment in view of the Circular dated 20th February, 1990. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal is hereby, dismissed.