ORDER 1. These appeals are filed by the teachers of private colleges claiming certain reliefs. They had filed two writ petitions, being OJC Nos. 2151 and 2615 of 1991 before the Orissa High Court. The claim in the writ petitions was that their appointments as college teachers were regularized and they were entitled to the pay scale on a par with the similarly situated lecturers in government colleges. The State of Orissa filed the written statement and denied the liability to pay the salary to the appellant-petitioners as claimed. On the basis of the material produced before the High Court, the Division Bench by its judgment and order dated 10-1-1995 passed the following order: "We direct the authorities to quantify the scales of entitlement of the petitioner on completion of 5 years, 7 years and 9 years of service from the date of his validated appointment in terms of Annexure 4. On the same being fixed, there can be no difficulty in working out a 1/3rd or 2/3rd ratio, as the case may be. We direct the authority to quantify the entitlement of the petitioner, keeping in view the aforesaid guidelines within three months from the date of receipt of our order. It is stated that decision of this Court in Biranchi Narayan Acharya v. State of Orissal has relevance so far as the ratio is concerned." 2. The High Court opined that the dispute in these writ petitions is covered by the judgment of the Orissa High Court in Biranchil. It is this order which is sought to be challenged in these appeals. 3. We have perused the judgment rendered by the High Court in Bira}chi Narayan Acharya v. State of Orissa 1 dated 21-4-1992 (see p.49 of the compilation). There is nothing in this judgment to indicate that while a disposing of the said writ petition, the 1/3rd and 2/3rd ratio was applied as referred to in the impugned judgment. It was urged on behalf of the appellants that the extension or application of the said ratio to the claims of the appellants was totally erroneous and the High Court had committed an error while issuing such directions. We have already quoted part of the impugned order to indicate how the High Court had proceeded to dispose of the writ petitions filed by the appellants. We have already quoted part of the impugned order to indicate how the High Court had proceeded to dispose of the writ petitions filed by the appellants. In our opinion, several contentions raised on behalf of both the parties, were not dealt with or answered by the High Court. It has simply followed the law laid down in Biranchil. In our opinion, there is no reference to such ratio in the judgment in Biranchil. It is in these circumstances and in order to do justice between the parties, we are inclined to remit the matter back to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law and we accordingly do so. 4. In the result, the impugned order of the High Court dated 10-1-1995 is set aside and the matters are remitted back to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. Several contentions were also raised before us but in the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not propose to deal with them at this stage. Parties will be at liberty, if they so desire, to file appropriate additional pleadings in the matter before the High Court. The High Court is requested to dispose of the above-referred OlCs as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from today. We also make it clear that we have not dealt with or concluded any of the issues raised by the parties in their respective pleadings before this Court. 5. The appeals are partly allowed and the proceedings are remanded back to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.