Judgment VINEY MITTAL, J. 1. The plaintiff is in appeal. He has concurrently lost before the two Courts below. A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff claiming that the recovery sought to be made from him was illegal, bad and liable to be set aside. 2. The facts which emerge from the record show that the plaintiff had filed a writ petition before this Court claiming higher scale. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed. The plaintiff was held entitled to the higher scale. However, arrears to be paid for such higher scale were restricted to a period of 38 months prior to the filing of the writ petition. 3. The order passed by this Court was not initially implemented. There was some delay. The plaintiff filed a contempt petition. In order to avoid any complications, the payment of entire arrears was made to the plaintiff. Subsequently, it was realised by the authorities that the payment of arrears had been restricted by this court to a period of 38 months. In these circumstances, the excess amount paid to the plaintiff was sought to be recovered being not as per his entitlement in view of the judgment passed in Civil Writ petition. The plaintiff challenged the aforesaid recovery proceedings by filing the present suit. 4. Both the Courts below have held that since the plaintiff was granted the payment of his arrears on the basis of directions issued by the High court in a writ petition filed by the plaintiff, therefore, he was only entitled to such payment which had so been granted by the High Court. The payment of arrears was restricted to a period of 38 months. The plaintiff was not entitled to claim any amount more than that. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and his appeal failed before the learned First appellate Court. 5. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. 6. The plaintiff has been granted his due. If any excess amount has been paid erroneously, then the same was liable to be recovered from him. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal dismissed.