( 1 ) IN these appeals, the order dated 24-2-1998 made by the Division bench of the High Court is assailed. The respondents herein sought for regularisation of their services and also for payment of salary on the basis of "equal pay for equal work". The High Court disposed of the writ petition by the impugned judgment. It appears to us that several contentions were raised in the writ petition, which was contested by the appellants resisting the claim of the respondents on various grounds. Unfortunately, the High Court did not examine the facts of the case and the respective contentions raised on either side. Even to apply the principle of "equal pay for equal work", various aspects have to be taken into consideration, such as, nature of work, the requisite qualification etc. Even to give direction for regularisation, relevant aspects including the rules or scheme, if need be, are also to be examined. The High Court has disposed of the writ petition stating as follows:"the petitioners are medical practitioners who have been working for about 8 or 9 years in the service of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur Nagar. They are being paid only Rs 75 per day although they are doing the same work as regularly employed doctors. On the facts of the case we direct that on the principle of equal pay for equal work, the petitioners shall be given the same pay scale as regular medical practitioners and they shall be regularised within a month. With these observations this petition is finally disposed of. " ( 2 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties on either side and looking to the impugned order, we are of the view that the High Court has to examine the writ petition on merits, having regard to the facts and contentions raised on either side and then dispose of it on merits in accordance with law by a considered and reasoned order. Under these circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment and order and remit the writ petition to the High Court for disposal in the light of what is stated above. The appeals are allowed accordingly. ( 3 ) WE are informed that two more connected writ petitions i. e. (i) CMWP no. 29406 of 1991, and (ii) CMWP No. Nil of 1992, between the same parties are pending in the High Court for disposal. The appeals are allowed accordingly. ( 3 ) WE are informed that two more connected writ petitions i. e. (i) CMWP no. 29406 of 1991, and (ii) CMWP No. Nil of 1992, between the same parties are pending in the High Court for disposal. Learned counsel for the parties submit that they may also be disposed of along with the present writ petition. We think it is just and appropriate that those writ petitions are also heard and disposed of along with this writ petition. Taking note of the fact that the respondents have been working since 1989 and the matter has been pending for quite some time, we request the High Court to dispose of the writ petitions expeditiously and, if possible, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. ( 4 ) WE make it clear that the status quo in relation to the services of the respondents as of today shall continue during the pendency of the writ petitions. ( 5 ) IN the light of the aforesaid order, the applications for directions stand disposed of. No costs.