THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.17354 of 2011 ORDER(Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The petitioner, while working as Head Constable, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2006. In the year 2002, he made a representation to the first respondent stating that he was getting lesser pay than his juniors and that the difference is more than two increments. The first respondent gave a reply dated 09.10.2002 stating that his juniors had earned family planning and special pay increments and as such, the pay of the petitioner could not be equated to their pay. While so, the second respondent took an objection with regard to the fixation of pay of the petitioner and consequently, the first respondent issued proceedings dated 01.06.2002 ordering recovery of the amounts and refixation of his pay. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.10742 of 2002 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). Through order, dated 27.11.2005, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the first respondent and directed him to re-examine the matter after giving notice to the petitioner. The first respondent issued notice and the petitioner gave reply. The petitioner states that without considering his reply, the first respondent issued proceedings dated 16.09.1996, refixing his pay and ordering recovery of the amounts. Hence, he filed O.A.No.6749 of 2006 before the Tribunal, which in turn disposed of the same on 05.11.2009 ordering that no recovery can be made for a sum of Rs.2,434/- . Challenging the proceedings dated 16.09.1996, and also the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.6749 of 2006, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. 3. A perusal of the order impugned shows that as the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed in the Revised Pay Scales, 1978, an amount of Rs.20,434/- was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner and an amount of Rs.18,000/- was already recovered from him and for recovery of the remaining sum of Rs.2,434/-, the first respondent passed such order. The Tribunal by the order impugned ordered that no recovery could be made from the petitioner for the said amount. Since the petitioner retired from service and the matter of recovery of amount was also over, this Court need not interfere with the proceedings issued by the first respondent as well as the order passed by the Tribunal. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:29.06.2011 sj