ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. Writ petitioner is working as Teacher in the fourth respondent-private aided educational institution. It appears that there was some correspondence and dispute with regard to the admission of the petitioner to the aided post and ultimately this dispute ended in favour of the petitioner and it had also been quantified that the petitioner was entitled for receiving aided salary for the period in question. In the earlier proceedings, this amount had been quantified at a sum of Rs. 12,33,667/-. As this amount had not been released in favour of the petitioner by the Department, contempt proceedings had also been taken not once but twice. Ultimately, the Government sanctioned by an order payment of this amount to the petitioner. The amount, in fact, has also been subsequently released and petitioner has received the amount. 2. After payment, the fourth respondent-Management took action to recover the amount that the Management had paid to the petitioner during the relevant period i.e., between 2003-2004 and 2010-2011 and the amount was quantified at Rs. 4,01,681/-. 3. There is no dispute that the petitioner had received this amount for the period in question from the Management and has also received the aided salary as released by the Government for the period in question. However, the petitioner was aggrieved that the Management took steps to recover this amount which had been paid by the Management at a point of time when she was not receiving her aided salary and on this aspect filed an appeal before the Director of Department of Pre-University Education, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 11 of 2011 complaining that the action taken by the Management is not tenable per se illegal etc. 4. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal finding that if there were some erroneous payments made due to some mistake on other aspects also, the Management can correct the same and in fact the amount represented not any salary but excess salary of Rs. 4,01,681/- which is the amount denotes excess as the petitioner had been subsequently paid all her arrears of salary as is payable to an aided Teacher etc. 5. The appeal being dismissed and being aggrieved by this order at Annexure-A, dated 8-3-2013, the present writ petition. 6. Mr. 4,01,681/- which is the amount denotes excess as the petitioner had been subsequently paid all her arrears of salary as is payable to an aided Teacher etc. 5. The appeal being dismissed and being aggrieved by this order at Annexure-A, dated 8-3-2013, the present writ petition. 6. Mr. H. Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that resorting to recovery at this point of time in respect of the amount received long back is not fair and proper; that no doubt the petitioner has received salary earlier, but not the entire extent, to some extent by the Management, but that amount being only in the nature of some ad hoc payment to tide over the difficulties just because petitioner was successful in making good her entitlement for aided salary, the Management should not resort to recovery at this point of time etc. 7. Mr. H. Subrarnanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner has been paid salary as is payable to aided Teacher for the period when she had not been recognised as person holding aided post. 8. The Appellate Authority also noticed that there was some duplication of payment credited to account of the petitioner for the period in question and if duplication was sought to be corrected, there is no need for interference and on such premise, had dismissed the appeal. 9. Petitioner's grievance appears to be more imaginary than real. When others are complaining that they are not receiving their regular salary, if a person is paid excess salary and is asked to refund the same, I do not find any illegality committed by the Management. At any rate, the petitioner cannot retain such excess amount. Therefore, I find no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed.