JUDGMNT 2. Counsel for the State submitted that time bound promotion was wrongly given to the petitioners and accordingly the same was cancelled and the excess amount paid was realized. Mr. Mukhopadhaya in reply submitted that petitioners are not challenging cancellation of their time bound promotions and recovery of amount. But petitioners are claiming pay scale at par with the instructors appointed prior to 1.4.1964, between 1.4.1973 to 31.12.1985. 3. State counsel could not show as to why if the pay scales of petitioners were brought at par to that of instructors appointed prior to 1.4.1964, with effect from 1.1.1986, petitioners were not entitled to same pay scales between 1.4.1964 to 31.12.1985. The said resolution no.3/ PRC-002/92/281/F has also not been brought on record by the respondents. 4. In the circumstances, this Court is left with no option than to remit the matter back to the Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment & Training, Jharkhand, Ranchi. Petitioners may file representations within four weeks, on which the Secretary will pass order, in accordance with law. 5. If petitioners are found entitled to their claim, the same should be provided to them. If their claim is not -legally tenable, the reasons thereof will be communicated to them. This exercise should be completed within two 1,1onths from the date of receipt of the representations. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the c?-se. 7. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.