( 1 ) -LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THE respondents have been appointed on daily wages as T. Mates with the appellant. It is their grievance that though that were holding the posts of clerks and were performing the duties of the post in the appellants Board, they were not being paid the salaries on par with regular clerks. Therefore, they are entitled to the payment of equal pay on par with clerks. The High Court accepted that contention and directed payment of equal pay on par with the clerks.

( 3 ) TWO contentions have been raised by the appellant in the High Court. Firstly, on merits and secondly, on jurisdiction. With regard to the merits, namely, their entitlement to payment of equal pay for equal work on par with the clerks, there was a settlement between the appellant and the employees. In terms thereof, they were paid the wages. That settlement was brought to the notice of this Court in pending Prosecution witness (C) No. 788/87 and batch. This Court, by order dated 10/05/1991, disposed of the writ petitions in terms of the settlement. Thereby the controversy on merits no longer survives.

( 4 ) THE only question that remains for decision is whether the High Court has jurisdiction t