ORDER : (S.K. Mishra, J.) 1. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the State of Jharkhand has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 01.12.2020 in W.P.(S) No.6207 of 2018 whereby the direction was given to the State considering the reported case of State of Punjab v. B.K. Dhir [ (2017) 9 SCC 337 ] and State of Punjab and Another v. Dharam Pal [ (2017) 9 SCC 395 ] to pay the salary for the period the petitioner had worked on officiating capacity in pursuance of the order of the competent authority (Annexure-9 to the writ application). 2. The fact of the case is not disputed at this stage that the petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee on 01.01.1993 on compassionate ground. He was posted at different places and discharged duty and office order dated 05.12.2001 was issued regarding deputation of his service. It is also not disputed that the petitioner discharged duty of Typist and Office Assistant for some period but he was not given pay for the same. 3. Learned Single Judge relying upon the aforesaid two judgments allowed the application in part, though the learned Single Judge did not allow the prayer for promotion of the respondent-petitioner. However, learned Single Judge directed that the higher pay scale should be awarded to the petitioner and the differential amount should be paid. Such order has been challenged in this case. 4. It has brought to the notice of the Court that similar matter came before the coordinate Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.735 of 2019 wherein one of us, namely, Shri Sujit Narayan Prasad, J., is a member. 5. After considering the various judgments including the case of State of Punjab v. B.K. Dhir (Supra) and State of Punjab and Another v. Dharam Pal (Supra), this Court came to the conclusion that since the matter is already covered, we do not consider it appropriate to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal. 6. 5. After considering the various judgments including the case of State of Punjab v. B.K. Dhir (Supra) and State of Punjab and Another v. Dharam Pal (Supra), this Court came to the conclusion that since the matter is already covered, we do not consider it appropriate to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal. 6. Moreover, Annexure-9 of the writ application reveals that respondent herein, the petitioner before the learned Single Judge, has been directed vide letter dated 04.03.2009 to the effect that – ^^iwoZ ds vkns'k dks la'kksf/kr djrs gq, Jh /kus'oj jke] i=kpkj fyfid] rsuq?kkV ck¡/k vapy] rsuq?kkV dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd os viuk lEiw.kZ izHkkj Jh y[ku izlkn ;kno] izfrfu;qDr] vuqlsod rsuq?kkV ck¡/k vapy] rsuq?kkV dks vxys vkns'k rd ds fy, lkSai nsa rFkk Jh ;kno] }kjk lafpdkvksa ds miLFkkiu esa i.wkZ :i ls lg;ksx djsaxsA ;g vkns'k rqjar izHkkoh gksxkA^^ 7. It is clear that he was directed to take over the charges of the higher post and in pursuance thereto he discharged duties. 8. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this Letters Patent Appeal. 9. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.