ORDER : (S.K. Mishra, J.) 1. By filing this intra court appeal, the State of Jharkhand has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 10.02.2022 in W.P. (S) No. 794 of 2021. 2. The private respondent was appointed as the Drugs Inspector. He was given additional charge of Deputy Director (Drugs), Drugs Control Directorate, Ranchi for the period from 31.12.2013 to 05.02.2015 and he discharged duties as Deputy Director, Drugs. Again, he was given additional charge of Joint Director, Drugs Control Directorate, Ranchi from 05.02.2015 till his superannuation on 30.09.2021. However, he was not given promotion and other consequential benefits, therefore, he approached this Court by filing writ application order of which is impugned before us in this L.P.A. 3. Although he had made several prayers, the learned Single Judge only granted relief of higher pay scale for the period, he has discharged higher responsibilities. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arindam Chattopadhyay and others -Vs-State of West Bengal and others, (2013) 4 SCC 152 . In fact, we have already relied upon two judgments of reported case viz. State of Punjab Vs. B.K. Dhir [(2017) 9 SSC 337] and State of Punjab and Another Vs. Dharam Pal [ (2017) 9 SCC 395 ] while deciding L.P.A. No. 287 of 2021 on 21.02.2023. Moreover, Rule 89 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 provides for officiating pay. It reads as follows:- “89. (1) Subject to the provisions of Rule 103 and to any orders regulating acting promotion from grade to grade at the time when these rules came into force, a Government servant who is appointed to officiate in a post shall not draw pay higher than his substantive pay in respect of a permanent post other than a tenure post, unless the officiating appointment involves the assumption of duties or responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the permanent post other than a tenure post on which he holds a lien or would hold a lien had his lien not been suspended. (2) For the purpose of this rule the officiating appointment shall not be deemed to involve the assumption of duties or responsibilities of greater importance if the post to which it is on the same scale of pay as the aforesaid permanent post, or, on a scale of pay identical therewith.” 4. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner was directed to perform higher responsibility and in pursuance of the directions given by the higher authority he performed higher responsibility, which requires experience and better skills than a Drugs Inspector. 5. In that view of the matter, even if the order giving him higher responsibility has been stipulated with a condition that he shall not be entitled to any higher skill of pay, would not debar him from claiming the higher pay-scale. 6. In that view of the matter, we find no error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.