ORDER 1. These petitioners claimed to have been appointed on the basis of an order dated 26.2.2001 passed in C.W.J.C No. 535 of 1999(R) preferred by the same petitioners, which is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The petitioners had made a claim before the Court in previous writ petition that they were working as casual workmen since 1984 onwards in the respondent-University and the respondent-university should be directed to regularize their services on the post on which they are working. The respondents took a stand that the panel prepared in 1998 has expired and, therefore, the services could not be regularized. It was also stated on behalf of the respondents that an advertisement was issued in April 2000 where the petitioners had also applied. In such circumstances, learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing of the said writ petition, observed that since the post had already been advertised in April 2000, the respondent-University is directed to prepare the panel of employees including the petitioners on the basis of seniority in terms of the advertisement published and regularize the services of the petitioners, if otherwise, eligible against the sanctioned vacant posts, if any, within a specified time. Counsel for the petitioners submits that there was a modification in the order dated 22.2.2001 in relation to the year of advertisement by order dated 28.3.2001 passed in the same case. 2. However, in any case these petitioners claimed to have been appointed though on temporary basis on the post of Correspondence/Accounts Clerk in the scale of pay of Rs.1200-1800 together with all admissible allowances. It is the contention of counsel for these petitioners that the post of Assistant, carried a scale of Rs.1500-2750 which, however, has not been granted to these petitioners. As a result of which, the revision in the higher payscale of Rs. 5500-9000 has also been denied to them and they are still working in the scale of Rs.4000-6000. 3. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavits. Their case is that the petitioners had applied against the advertisement no. 1/2000 for the post of Correspondence/Accounts clerk to which the scale of Rs. 1200 to 1800 was mentioned. However, counsel for the respondent-university submits that the question of grant of scale depends upon the approval of the State Government as per the provisions of the University Act. 4. Their case is that the petitioners had applied against the advertisement no. 1/2000 for the post of Correspondence/Accounts clerk to which the scale of Rs. 1200 to 1800 was mentioned. However, counsel for the respondent-university submits that the question of grant of scale depends upon the approval of the State Government as per the provisions of the University Act. 4. The petitioners in their reply have stated that by the decision taken on 23.2.1987, Annexure-9 to their reply, a common scale of pay for all classes of clerks was fixed in the scale of Rs. 730-1080 and Rs. 785-1210, which was approved for the secretarial assistant. As such the revised scale of Rs. 785-1210 was Rs. 1500-2750, which the petitioners have been denied by keeping them in the scale of Rs. 1200-1800. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties, in the facts and circumstances, which have been stated on behalf of either of the parties and have been referred to hereinabove, it appears that the grievances of the petitioners need to be first addressed by the competent authority of the respondent-University themselves, since it relates to fixation of the pay scale, which is primarily in the executive domain. 6. In such circumstances, the writ petition is being disposed of by allowing the petitioners to approach the Vice Chancellor, Birsa Agriculture university, respondent no. 2 with a fresh representation for redressal of their aforesaid grievances relating to grant of higher pay scale of Rs. 1500-2750 (pre revised) and the revised scale of Rs.5500-9000 as claimed by them for the post of assistant on which they are working, together with all supporting facts and documents within three weeks. On receipt of such representation, respondent no. 2 shall consider the same in accordance with law and take an informed decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 10 weeks thereafter. If any, approval of State Government is required as per the statute, the respondent no. 2 shall thereafter forward such recommendation made in respect of revision of the scales to the State Government for seeking approval. Needless to say that if the said scale is approved by the competent authority and the State Government then the arrears and the current scale should be paid to them within a period of 12 weeks thereafter. 7. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Petition disposed of.