JUDGMENT : Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State, and with their consent, heard the appeal on merits. 3. Having considered the matter and heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are not inclined to interfere. The learned Single Judge has clearly noted that while claiming the relief for payment of salary for certain periods in the writ petition, the writ petitioner/appellant did not mention that for the said relief he had raised a claim before the departmental authorities and finding the claim to be fictitious, a departmental proceeding had been initiated, in which, it was found that the claim was based upon forged documents and writ petitioner/appellant was not entitled to those payments. Those relevant and major facts were not pleaded in the writ petition. It was brought on record in the counter affidavit. The learned Single Judge, therefore, refused to interfere in the matter. 4. We see no reason to take a different view in the matter. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.