JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. Rajni Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Sido Kanhu Murmu University and Ms. Priyanka Boby, the learned counsel for the respondent State. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents to fix the salary of the petitioner as per 6th Pay Revision w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and thereafter to pay the difference of arrear salary to the petitioner with 10 % interest is also the prayer made in the writ petition. 4. The petitioner was appointed as Night Guard in Godda College, Godda vide appointment letter dated 21.07.2003 by the Registrar Sido Kanhu Murmu University on the vacant sanctioned post on daily wages. The petitioner had been working continuously in that college. The service of the petitioner was regularized on the post of Night Guard at Godda College, Godda in the pay scale of Rs.775-1025/- by the Registrar, Sido Kanhu Murmu University vide notification dated 22.12.2008 as contained in Annexure-1 series. The petitioner’s salary was fixed as per the 5th pay revision as per the direction issued by the Deputy Secretary, Directorate of Higher Education, Government of Jharkhand by the Registrar, Sido Kanhu Murmu University vide notification dated 14.06.2010. The name of the petitioner figures at sl.no.19. The Principal, Godda College, Godda had submitted requisition for revision of salary of the employees of Godda College as per the sixth pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.2006 before the Registrar, Sido Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka. The petitioner is entitled for fixation of his salary as per 6th pay revision scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as contained by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already filed several representation as contained in Annexure-3 series. She submits that the said representations are still pending. 6. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent University fairly submits that the petitioner may file a fresh representation before the respondent no.5 who will examine the matter and will do the needful. 7. She submits that the said representations are still pending. 6. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent University fairly submits that the petitioner may file a fresh representation before the respondent no.5 who will examine the matter and will do the needful. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent State also submits that the State’s role will come once the recommendation is made by the University concerned. 8. In view of the above fact and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before the respondent no.5 within three weeks from today with all the credentials on which the petitioner is relying for such relief. 9. If such representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the respondent no.5 will produce the file before the competent authority for passing appropriate reasoned order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The competent authority shall pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date the matter is presented before him. 10. If any decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, the respondent University shall act in accordance with the rules, regulations and the guidelines and will take appropriate step for providing such relief to the petitioner. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.