Order : Deepak Roshan, J. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the Letter No. 444 dated 15.10.2012 (Annexure-9), issued by the 3 rd Respondent; whereby the representation of the petitioner dated 26.03.2012 has been rejected. 2. Earlier, the petitioner preferred a writ application being W.P.(S) No. 7410 of 2011 praying therein for a direction upon the respondent- authorities to pay the salary of the petitioner for the relevant period during which the petitioner was working as Paid Manager under the respondents. Thereafter, a reasoned order has been passed whereby the claim of the petitioner for salary as Paid Manager has been rejected. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention to this Court towards the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5986 of 2015 titled “Digamber Rai & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.” and analogous cases and submits that the issue with regard to payment of salary to the Paid Manager has been decided in the above case and LPA which was preferred by the respondents has also been dismissed and the claim of the petitioner herein has further been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to salary of Paid Manager. Learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to several orders and one of such orders passed in W.P.(S) No. 7137 of 2012 wherein the prayer for payment of salary as Paid Manager has been decided in favour of the petitioner and the employees were also given the said benefit. 4. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents, however, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the petitioner may approach the respondents once more so that his claim can be decided. 5. This argument of the respondents cannot be accepted at this stage when on the first round the case of the petitioner was remitted to the authority to take a decision. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that the issue with regard to payment of salary of Paid Manager has been decided against the respondent-Bank and even the Hon’ble Apex Court did not interfere in the above referred case. 6. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that the issue with regard to payment of salary of Paid Manager has been decided against the respondent-Bank and even the Hon’ble Apex Court did not interfere in the above referred case. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the order passed in the case of “Digambar Rai” (supra), it appears that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has decided the issue and directed the petitioners to approach the respondent-Cooperative Bank with their claim by filing representations. For brevity paragraph nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 40, 41 and 42 of the order passed in the case of “Digambar Rai” (supra) read as under:- “23. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 01.08.2013 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand, Department of Cooperation recalling the order dated 19.10.2012 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is accordingly set-aside. 24. This Court also finds that the order dated 19.10.2012 by which the Secretary of the cooperative department had asked the various cooperative banks to submit the details of the payment due to the petitioners/paid managers working under different cooperative societies so that appropriate allocation of fund as per the budget could be made, was in accordance with law in view of the fact that the fund from which the petitioners were to be paid included grant-in-aid from the State Government. It further appears that pursuant to order dated 19.10.2012, the necessary details have already been forwarded, but the same could not be taken to a logical end in view of the impugned order dated 01.08.2013 which recalled the order dated 19.10.2012. 25. Accordingly, this Court having set-aside the order dated 01.08.2013 directs the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative (the successor of Department of cooperation having merged with other departments) to take appropriate steps within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order so that further action be taken in terms of the order dated 19.10.2012 for seeking budgetary allocation for release of grant for the respondent cooperative bank or its successor in interest. It is expected that the Government would take a humane approach and also consider the fact that the fund from which the payment was to be made to the paid managers, included grants from the state government as per the circular no. 503 dated 31.05.1989. 26. Considering the judgment passed in the case of Dhiren Kumar Mandal (Supra) [which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench against which SLP has already been dismissed] wherein a direction was issued to the cooperative bank to make payment, there can be no reason to have a different approach so far as the present writ petitioners are concerned. It is not in dispute that a number of similar directions have been made in different writ petitions from time of time. 27. Accordingly, the Chief Executive Officer, Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank is directed to release the admissible amount subject to verification of work done by the petitioners within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to be produced by the petitioners along with a representation and a copy of the writ records. Considering the order passed in WP(S) No. 1232 of 2016 dated 23.10.2019, it would be permissible for the respondent bank to adjust the payment so made against the grant in-aid received from the state government. ……. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40. However, the fact remains that the circular no. 503 dated 31.05.1989 clearly indicates that one of the components of the funds for payment to the paid managers will be by way of grant in-aid from the State Government and therefore, the dispute between the respondent – cooperative bank and the State cannot be an impediment in release of any fund by way of grant –in-aid to the respondent – cooperative bank. The dispute between the respondent bank and the state does not make the case of the petitioners (paid managers) different from that of the paid managers who had worked under different district cooperative banks now merged with Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank. Further, there appears to be no discernable reasons for the State to treat the respondent cooperative bank differently from other district cooperative banks (now merged with Jharkhand state cooperative bank) at least in the matter of grant in aid for payment to paid managers in terms of circular no. 503 dated 31.05.1989. 41. Further, there appears to be no discernable reasons for the State to treat the respondent cooperative bank differently from other district cooperative banks (now merged with Jharkhand state cooperative bank) at least in the matter of grant in aid for payment to paid managers in terms of circular no. 503 dated 31.05.1989. 41. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to take a different view with regard to the present petitioners, other than the view taken in the case of “Dhiren Kumar Mandal Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others” reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 523 and followed in subsequent judgements including in the connected with petition being WP(S) No.5986 of 2015. 42. The petitioners are directed to approach the respondent – cooperative bank with their claim by filing a representation along with 15 a copy of this order and a copy of the writ records and the respondent – Bank, upon verification and being satisfied with the period of work rendered by the petitioners, shall make the payment to the petitioners and the amount so paid will be adjustable against the grant-in-aid which may be released by the State Government in terms of circular no. 503 dated 31.05.1989 read with order passed in the connected writ petition being WP(S) No.5986 of 2015 .” 7. Having regard to the aforesaid admitted facts, the impugned Letter No. 444 dated 15.10.2012 rejecting the claim of the petitioner, is hereby, quashed and set aside and the instant writ application stands allowed. The respondent no.6 is directed to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; failing which the petitioner shall also be entitled for 7% interest over and above the calculated amount of arrears of salary. In case of interest, it shall be calculated from today till the date of actual payment. 8. As a result, this writ petition stands disposed of in the manner indicated hereinabove.