ORDER : Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J. This writ petition is filed seeking to declare Proceeding Nos.4290/74/ 2013/Accts/Pen, dated 31.05.2013 and MR127/39/81/Estt.III, dated 28.09.2013 of respondents 1 and 2 in re-fixing the petitioner pay, withdrawing increments and communicating statement of recovery along with pension sanctioning order under proceedings No.2975/SP/2550/Accts/Pension, dated 23.06.2014, recovering excess amount of Rs.5.57,019/- as illegal and arbitrary and consequently by nullifying the same, direct the respondents to refund the said amount of Rs.5,57,019/- with interest @ 12% p.a. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows :- (a) The petitioner has joined as Technician in the year 1981 in thereafter she was appointed as a Computer Operator in the pay scale of Rs.600-1050 and her pay was fixed at Rs.650/- per month, as per the recommendations of the Selection Committee vide proceedings dated 31.08.1982 and posted at University Computer Centre. Subsequently, she took voluntary retirement on 30.04.2013 on personal grounds and the same was accepted by the 1 st respondent vide letter dated 07.03.2013. The petitioner has completed 31 years of service. (b) At the time of joining, the petitioner was given two advance increments and her basic pay was fixed at Rs.650/- and her pay fixation under R.S.P. 1986, 1993 and 2005 was approved by the State Audit Department. (c) When the petitioner applied for early retirement benefits, she was informed that an objection had been raised by the Local Fund Audit regarding the grant of pension. The 1st respondent, through letter dated 26.11.2012, requested the 2nd respondent to waive the objection. In response, the 2nd respondent, by letter dated 27.11.2012, directed the 1st respondent to refix the petitioner’s pay and furnish relevant particulars. (d) Now, the respondents sought to recover the amount paid to the petitioner at the time of her appointment, which included two advance increments granted on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Relying on the assurance and incentive offered at the time of her appointment in 1984, the petitioner had joined the said post. The petitioner also submitted representation dated 14.12.2012 to the 1 st respondent, opposing the proposed recovery and pay refixation. Thereafter, the respondents issued proceedings, dated 31.05.2013, 28.09.2013 and 23.06.2014. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner also submitted representation dated 14.12.2012 to the 1 st respondent, opposing the proposed recovery and pay refixation. Thereafter, the respondents issued proceedings, dated 31.05.2013, 28.09.2013 and 23.06.2014. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that issuance of proceedings dated 31.05.2013, 28.09.2013 and 23.06.2014 by respondent Nos.1 and 2, respectively, for refixing the petitioner’s pay at Rs.700/- instead of Rs.900/- with effect from 11.06.1984, and the consequent recovery of the alleged amount is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the proceedings, dated 31.05.2013, 28.09.2013 and 23.06.2014 issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively, and allow the writ petition. 4. The 1 st respondent filed a counter affidavit stating as follows :- (a) The 2 nd respondent, while approving the petitioner’s pay fixation, raised the following objection: “Subject to approval of government on Higher start given at Entry level.” (b) The petitioner opted for voluntary retirement on personal grounds, and the University, vide order dated 07.03.2013, permitted the petitioner to retire from service on 30.04.2013. Regarding the audit objection, the University, through a letter dated 13.09.2013, addressed the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, requesting ratification of the action taken by the University in granting the Higher Start to the petitioner. (c) The petitioner vide letter dated 14.08.2013, submitted that in response to the Notification issued in 1982 for the post of Computer Operator, she was appointed as Computer Operator in the pay scale of Rs.600–1050 with a starting pay of Rs.650/-, and she was informed that her pension was not fixed due to the State Audit objection. She further submitted that there was no objection in approving RSP-86, RSP-93, RSP- 2005 and requested for refixation of her pay from entry level to overcome the Audit Objection. (d) Accordingly, the University, through Letter No. MR-127/39/81/Esst.III dated 28.09.2013, informed the Director, University Computer Centre, O.U., that in the process of waiving the objection raised by the State Audit with respect to the pay fixation under RSP-2010 of the petitioner, Computer Operator (Retd), the Higher Start awarded to her at the time of appointment had been withdrawn. (e) The University has withdrawn the Higher Start granted to the petitioner and her pay was refixed based on her request. (e) The University has withdrawn the Higher Start granted to the petitioner and her pay was refixed based on her request. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge Proceedings No. 4290/74/2013/Accts/PEN dated 31.05.2013 and MR- 127/39/81/Esst.III dated 28.09.2013, issued by respondents 1 and 2, wherein her pay was refixed, the increments were withdrawn, and a recovery statement was communicated along with the pension sanction order under Proceedings No. 2975/SP/2550/ Accts/PEN dated 23.06.2014, recovering an excess amount of Rs.5,57,019 with interest at 12% per annum. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents have rightly passed the proceedings, dated 31.05.2013, 28.09.2013 and 23.06.2014 and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard Sri P.B.Vijaya Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt.A.V.S.Laxmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent. Perused the record. 7. In the instant case, on 03.10.2013, this Court while admitting the writ petition granted interim suspension. At the time of passing the said interim order, the letter dated 14.08.2013, which is said to have been addressed by the petitioner, is not on record. Subsequently, the 1 st respondent filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking to receive the letter dated 14.08.2013 addressed by the petitioner. 8. In the present case, the petitioner is seeking to refund the amount of Rs.5,57,019/- with interest @ 12% per annum. 9. A perusal of the counter affidavit goes to show that the respondent authorities have stated that the University withdrew the Higher Start given at the entry level and refixed the pay of the petitioner at her own request. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim that the proceedings No. 4290/74/2013/Accts/PEN, dated 31.05.2013, and MR-127/39/81/Estt.III, dated 28.09.2013, issued by the 1st and 2nd respondents in refixing the petitioner’s pay, withdrawing increments, and communicating the statement of recovery along with the pension sanction order under proceedings No. 2975/SP/2550/Accts/PEN, dated 23.06.2014, are invalid. 10. In the case on hand, the petitioner herself made a representation to the authorities on 14.08.2013 regarding the fixation of pay at the entry level. 10. In the case on hand, the petitioner herself made a representation to the authorities on 14.08.2013 regarding the fixation of pay at the entry level. A perusal of the said letter goes to show that it bears the petitioner’s own signature, wherein it is stated that “subject to approval of Government on higher start given at entry level.” It means, if the Government had approved the higher start, the question of recovery would not have arisen. However, in the present case, the Government did not approve the higher start, and the University, through Lr.No.MR-116/39/81/Estt.III, dated 13.09.2013, addressed the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, requesting ratification of the action taken by the University in allowing the Higher Start to the petitioner. Subsequently, through Lr. No. MR- 127/39/81/Estt.III, dated 28.09.2013, the University informed the Director, University Computer Centre, OU, that in the process of waiving the objection raised by the State Audit for approval of the pay fixation of the petitioner in RPS-2010, the Higher Start awarded to her at the time of appointment as Computer Operator was withdrawn. 11. Thus, the University withdrew the Higher Start given at the entry level and refixed the petitioner’s pay at her own request. In these circumstances, the relief sought by the petitioner for refund of the recovered amount with 12% interest does not arise. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in THOMAS DANIEL Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No.7115 of 2010, dated 02.05.2022 and STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs. RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER) AND OTHERS , [(2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334] . In the said cases, mistakenly excess amount was paid by the authorities and the same was directed to be refunded. But, in the present case, no excess amount was paid to the petitioner by mistake. Moreover, the petitioner in her letter dated 14.08.2013 requested the 1 st respondent to refix her pay from entry level onwards “subject to approval of Government on higher start given at entry level”. When the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement, she was informed that there was an objection from the Local Fund Audit and that the Higher Start given to her at the entry level was subject to Government approval. When the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement, she was informed that there was an objection from the Local Fund Audit and that the Higher Start given to her at the entry level was subject to Government approval. Since the State Government did not approve the Higher Start, the respondents have rightly recovered the alleged amount from the petitioner. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.