JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. This memo of appeal has been filed assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.1138 of 2009 dated 25.01.2017 whereby and whereunder the claim filed by the petitioner for getting remuneration for the period for which he has worked as para teacher has been directed to be paid. 2. The State-respondent, being aggrieved with the said order, is before this Court invoking the jurisdiction of Clause-10 of the Letters Patent Appeal on the ground that in the counter affidavit specific plea was taken that the petitioner has not challenged the earlier order passed by the District Education Officer -cum-District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Dumka wherein decision has been taken for not paying the remuneration since the writ petitioner has not performed his duty. 3. It is case of the state-appellant that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the specific plea taken by them in the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that because the petitioner has not worked as para teacher, there is no question of making payment/remuneration. It is the further case of the State-appellant that the decision has already been taken in this regard by the District Superintendent of Education -cum-District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Dumka wherein the claim of the petitioner has already been rejected but the writ petitioner, without assailing the same before the writ Court, has approached this Court. A prayer has been made for payment of the remuneration claiming therein that petitioner has performed his duty for the period as para teacher and as such he is entitled to get the remuneration and in this background the present appeal has been filed. 4. The writ petitioner has been represented by Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, learned counsel who has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order impugned rather the learned Single Judge has passed the order after taking into consideration the fact that the writ petitioner has performed his duty and as such he is entitled to get the remuneration for the period for which he has performed his duty, but he has fairly conceded that the decision taken by the State-opposite party dated 13.07.2009 has not been assailed before the writ Court. 5. 5. In view of such submissions and the factual background of the case, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the aspect of the matter that since the State-respondent has taken decision rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the writ petitioner has not performed his duty and to that effect the reference of the attendance of register has been made in the impugned order and as such the learned Single Judge ought to have taken into consideration this aspect of the matter before directing to pay the honorarium to the petitioner. In view of such background, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the writ Court is not sustainable in the eye of law rather it is contrary to the documents which are on record because as the petitioner has not worked for the period in question, he has got no right for claiming the honorarium stating that he has performed his duty for which he is claiming the same in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and accordingly the same is set aside. 6. This Letters Patent Appeal is allowed without any cost.