Judgment Ajai Lamba, J. 1. This order shall dispose of six civil writ petitions namely CWP No. 17587 of 2009 titled Sital Dass v. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No. 17589 of 2009 titled Jiwa Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No. 17593 of 2009 titled Jagdish Ram v. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No. 17596 of 2009 titled Ram Lal v. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No. 17601 of 2009 titled Dewan Chand v. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No. 17602 of 2009 titled Ganesh Dass v. State of Punjab and Others, as common questions of facts and law are involved. For reference to record, CWP No. 17587 of 2009 titled Sital Dass v. State of Punjab and Others, is being taken up. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order Annexure P-5 dated 07.01.2008 and order Annexure P-6 dated 18.01.2008, Prayer is for quashing refixation of pay and reduction in basic pay as also resultant recovery. Learned counsel contends that the case is covered by decision of this Court dated 27.05.2009 rendered in CWP No. 5568 of 2008, Charan Dass and Others v. State of Punjab and Others. 3. Issue notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Sh. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice. Heard. 4. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was working as a Fitter on Ranjit Sagar Dam, Shahpur Kandi Township, Pathankot. The petitioner retired on 28.02.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. It has been pleaded that the petitioner alongwith other employees had to work under tough and hazardous conditions including putting life in danger. About 300 employees working on the project lost their lives in view of the tough working conditions. Extra effort had to be put in for early completion of the project. Considering the facts and circumstances, 5 special increments and 5 retrenchee increments were granted to the petitioner. 5. Services of the petitioner was regularized, since he had initially been inducted in service on work charge basis. Pay of the petitioner was fixed after protecting the last pay drawn as work charge employee. Subsequently, a Committee was constituted to consider the fixation of pay. It was recommended that the special increments granted earlier be not withdrawn and pay merged in the pay. Pay of the petitioner was fixed after protecting the last pay drawn as work charge employee. Subsequently, a Committee was constituted to consider the fixation of pay. It was recommended that the special increments granted earlier be not withdrawn and pay merged in the pay. Report of the Committee was accented by respondent no. 2 i.e. Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab, Ranjit Sagar Dam, Shahpur Kandi Township, Pathankot. Necessary instructions were also issued in this regard. 6. Subsequently, objection was raised that special increments cannot be granted to the petitioner as the same are not permissible under Punjab Civil Service Rules. It was further pointed out that sanction of the Government was not obtained before grant of increments. Response to the objection was given by the Chief Engineer. 7. Be that as it may, vide impugned order Annexure P-5 dated 07.01.2008, direction has been issued to fix the pay of the petitioner after withdrawing special increments. In pursuance to Annexure P - 6, all the Executive Engineers vide order dated 18.01.2008 have been asked to refix the pay. Accordingly, recovery from the retiral benefits of the petitioner has been effected. 8. Learned counsel states that this issue was raised before this Court in Charan Dasss case (supra) Learned counsel for the respondent - State contends that indeed the matter would be covered by judgment rendered in Charan Dass case (supra). The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: - "It is admitted case of the parties that the work charge period is to be counted as qualifying period for the grant of pensionary benefits and thus the emoluments drawn by the employee as work charge employee had to be considered as also the period when the employee served in work charge capacity. It is admitted case of the parties that the benefit of retrenchment increments and special increments was granted to the employees during the period they were serving in work charge capacity without any misrepresentation or fraud on their part. The benefit allowed to the petitioners is, however, sought to be withdrawn after take over and regularisation by the State Government with effect from 13.3.1996. The retrenchment increments were allowed to bring their salary and emoluments at par with other employees in the revised pay scale, keeping in view their last drawn salary as retrenchees. The benefit allowed to the petitioners is, however, sought to be withdrawn after take over and regularisation by the State Government with effect from 13.3.1996. The retrenchment increments were allowed to bring their salary and emoluments at par with other employees in the revised pay scale, keeping in view their last drawn salary as retrenchees. No reasons have been given in the reply as to how such benefit is impermissible or illegal. The State, however, has attempted to justify its action regarding withdrawal of special and retrenchment increments. Admittedly, special increments were granted from time to time to some of the employees/petitioners for their alleged good work. There was no uniform policy and benefit of special increments was given on selective basis. In so far as the retrenchment increments are concerned, there cannot be any second opinion that the benefit was granted to bring their wages at par under the revised pay scale and that too before their take over by the State Government. As regards the grant of special increments is concerned, it was selectively granted from person to person and is not justified. However, one fact remains common in regard to grant of both the benefits i.e. retrenchment increments and special increments that the said benefits were conferred upon the petitioners without any misrepresentation or fraud on their part. The issue is squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in 2009(3) S.C.T. 333 : CWP No.2799 of C.W.P. No. 17587 of 2009 5 2008 alongwith other connected matters (Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others) decided on 22.5.2009. The case of the petitioners falls in category ii) wherein following observations have been made:- "It is in the light of the above pronouncement, no longer open to the authorities granting the benefits, no matter erroneously, to contend that even when the employee concerned was not at fault and was not in any way responsible for the mistake committed by the authorities, they are entitled to recover the benefit that has been received by the employee on the basis of any such erroneous grant. We say so primarily because if the employee is not responsible for the erroneous grant of benefit to him/her, it would induce in him the belief that the same was indeed due and payable. We say so primarily because if the employee is not responsible for the erroneous grant of benefit to him/her, it would induce in him the belief that the same was indeed due and payable. Acting on that belief the employee would, as any other person placed in his position arrange his affairs accordingly which he may not have done if he had known that the benefit being granted to him is likely to be withdrawn at any subsequent point of time on what may be then said to be the correct interpretation and application of rules. Having induced that belief in the employee and made him change his position and arrange his affairs in a manner that he would not otherwise have done, it would be unfair, inequitable and harsh for the Government to direct recovery of the excess amount simply because on a true and correct interpretation of the rules, such a benefit was not due. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that in case the employees who are recipient of the benefits extended to them on an erroneous interpretation or application of any rule, regulation, circular and instructions have not in any way contributed to such erroneous interpretation nor have they committed any fraud, misrepresentation, deception to obtain the grant of such benefit, the benefit so extended may be stopped for the future, but the amount already paid to the employees cannot be recovered from them." In view of the above, the respondents are not entitled to effect any recovery from the petitioners either on account of retrenchment increments or special increments allegedly erroneously given. However, the respondents are entitled to re - fix the emoluments by reducing the special increment only. Consequently the pay of the petitioners will be re - fixed and in case of those employees who have already retired from service, the retiral benefits shall be released within a period of two months. The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the delayed payment of pension/retiral benefits at the statutory rate wherever admissible and at the rate of 6% on pension and other retiral benefits where statutory interest is not provided for. Any amount deducted from the retiral benefits or the salary of the petitioners shall be refunded within the aforesaid period. Ordered accordingly. Disposed of." 9. Any amount deducted from the retiral benefits or the salary of the petitioners shall be refunded within the aforesaid period. Ordered accordingly. Disposed of." 9. In view of the stand of the respondents that the issue is covered by Charan Dass case (supra), this petition is allowed in terms and to the extent of decision rendered by this Court in CWP No. 5568 of 2008, Charan Dass and Others v. State of Punjab and Others dated 27.05.2009.