JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed for restraining the respondents from making recovery vide impugned order dated 15.2.99 (Annexure- I). 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Petitioner had wrongly been given the higher pay scale and when the respondents could find out that mistake, they rectified it and passed the appropriate order, fixed the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and for the past amount, they passed the impugned order for making a recovery to the tune of Rs. 37,501/- from the petitioner. 3. As petitioner himself admits that it was by mistake and the respondents have a right to rectify the said mistake and have done it, the only question is : whether the money paid to him without any fault on the part of the petitioner, can be permitted to be recovered? In support of his contention, petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Suppl (1) SCC 18 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: "The principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant." 4. In Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521 , the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the similar case and held that if the employee has received the extra money due to no fault of him and that scale is reduced subsequently with effect, from back date, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount which has already been paid to him. This Court, in Nand Lal v. R.S.E.B. (1999) 2 Rajasthan LR 707 , has passed the same order. 5. In V. Ganga Ram v. Regional Joint Director (1997) 6 SCC 139 , the Apex Court held that if the amount has been paid by mistake, the recovery can be made of the excess amount. This Court, in Nand Lal v. R.S.E.B. (1999) 2 Rajasthan LR 707 , has passed the same order. 5. In V. Ganga Ram v. Regional Joint Director (1997) 6 SCC 139 , the Apex Court held that if the amount has been paid by mistake, the recovery can be made of the excess amount. However, in Union of India v. Ram Gopal Aggrawal, (1998) 2 SCC 589 , the Apex Court has held that if the amount had been paid by mistake, and there has been no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee, the recovery at a belated stage would result in great hardship. Therefore, in such circumstance, the amount already paid to him, even under the interim order of the Court, be not recovered. 6. In all these aforesaid cases, one thing becomes clear that the employer has a right to rectify the mistake and to recover the excess amount paid. 7. The above referred to orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court seem to have been passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and none of them lays down the law having binding effect as passed under Article 141 of the Constitution. But in the facts and circumstances of those cases, when the cases were considered on the basis of legal submissions raised therein and the Court realised that though the employees were not entitled for the said amount but had been paid, in exercise of the powers under Article 141 of the Constitution, the Hon'ble Supreme Court restrained the Authorities to recover the said amount. More so, if the employer is not permitted to recover the said amount in law, it would nullify the concept of rectification of mistake and render the system of audit to nugatory. it would result in a wind-fall gains to the employee and would amount to unjust enrichment. 8. In K.S. Satyanarayan v. V.R. Narayana Rao (1999) 6 SCC 104 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that juristic basis for such an order of recovery, even if not based on contract or tort, may fall on another category of quasi-contract or restitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the said case, approved and followed two decisions of English Courts, namely, Fibrosa v. Fairbairn (1942) 2 All. ER 122 and Nelson v. Larholt (1947) 2 All. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the said case, approved and followed two decisions of English Courts, namely, Fibrosa v. Fairbairn (1942) 2 All. ER 122 and Nelson v. Larholt (1947) 2 All. ER 751 , which are quite eluminating and the relevant parts thereof, respectively, are reproduced as under: (1) ".....any civilised system of law is bound to provide remedies for cases of what has been called unjust enrichment or unjust benefit, that is, to prevent a man from retaining the money of, or some benefit derived from, another which it is against conscience that he should keep. Such remedies in English law are generically different from remedies in contract or in tort, and are now recognised to fall within a third category of the common law which has been called quasi-contract or restitution." (2) "It is no longer appropriate to draw distinction between law and equity. Principles have now to be stated in the light of their combined effect. Nor is it necessary to canvass the niceties of the old forms of action. Remedies now depend on the substance of the right, not on whether they, can be fitted into a particular framework. The right here is not peculiar to equity or contract or tort, but falls naturally within the important category of cases where the Court orders restitution if the justice of the case so requires." 9. In the cases decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, various issues had been agitated. In the instant case, petitioner had not agitated any issue other than the issue that by rectification of a mistake, recovery cannot be made. It is settled legal proposition that writ lies when there is a legal injury caused to the petitioner. In the instant case, petitioner cannot be permitted to agitate that by rectification of a mistake and passing an order of recovery, the respondents have caused some legal injury to the petitioner. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court protected such recoveries in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution as it was found necessary by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to do so" for doing complete justice in cause or matter." But this Court has not been enclothed with such powers. 11. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court protected such recoveries in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution as it was found necessary by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to do so" for doing complete justice in cause or matter." But this Court has not been enclothed with such powers. 11. In State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1593 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "The Constitution has, by Article 142 empowered the Supreme Court to make such order as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it, which authority the High Court does not enjoy. The jurisdiction with a writ petition, is circumscribed by the limitations discussed and declared by the judicial decisions and it cannot transgress the limits on the basis of whims or subjective sense of justice varying from Judge to Judge." 12. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali (1994) 4 SCC 448 . 13. In J & K Public Service Commission etc. v. Dr. Narinder Mohan, AIR 1994 SC 1808 , the Apex Court has observed as under: "Therefore, the High Court is not right in placing reliance on the judgment as a ratio to give the direction to the Public Service Commission to consider the cases of the respondents. Article 142 - power is confined only to this Court. The ratio in.... is also not an authority under Article 141." 14. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995)6 SCC 749 , in a separate judgment, one Hon'ble Judge of the Apex Court has observed that the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution has ample power to do complete justice, meaning thereby that the power which the Supreme Court can exercise under Article 142 of the Constitution can also be exercised by the High Court but the other two Hon'ble Judges did not express any option on this issue. 15. In Sanchalakshri v. Vijay Kumar R. Mehta (1998) 8 SCC 245 , the Apex Court has categorically held that in absence of enabling provision analogous to Article 142 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot "pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice" like the Supreme Court. 15. In Sanchalakshri v. Vijay Kumar R. Mehta (1998) 8 SCC 245 , the Apex Court has categorically held that in absence of enabling provision analogous to Article 142 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot "pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice" like the Supreme Court. The Court further observed as under: "It would not be correct to say that this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi case has accepted the view that the High Courts/Tribunals possess the same powers which this Court has under Article 142 of the Constitution for doing complete justice, even in the absence of such a provision." 16. In view of the above, it is clear that this Court has no power to issue such directions. 17. Thus, in view of the above, the petitioner is held not entitled for any relief. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******