ORDER 1.HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. 2. THE SHORT QUESTION THAT AROSE FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT IN THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH WAS THAT WHETHER THE SERVICE RENDERED BY THE APPELLANT HEREIN IN THE SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE ESTABLISHMENT 22, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHOULD BE COUNTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PENSION AND THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHOULD GIVE PENSION AND OTHER RETIRAL BENEFITS ON THAT BASIS. THE FACTS THAT ARE NOT IN DISPUTE ARE THAT THE APPELLANT RENDERED SERVICE BETWEEN 12-11-1969 TO 2-6-1974 ON CONTRACT BASIS WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. LATER HE WAS APPOINTED IN THE STATE SERVICE. WHEN THE TIME CAME FOR FIXING THE PENSION, HE MADE CLAIM TO COUNT THE SAID PERIOD OF 12-11-1969 TO 2-6-1974 FOR THE PENSIONARY BENEFITS. HE APPROACHED THE HIMACHAL PRADESH ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING THE RELIEF. THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED HIS APPLICATION AND GAVE DIRECTION TO THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH TO COUNT THE SAID PERIOD FOR THE PURPOSE OF PENSION. THE STATE WAS NOT HAPPY WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND HENCE, FILED THE WRIT PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT RELYING ON RULE 17 OF THE CCS (PENSION) RULES, 1972 FOUND THAT THE INTERPRETATION PLACED BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT CORRECT AND IN TERMS OF RULE 17 THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR COUNTING THE SAID PERIOD FOR THE PURPOSE OF PENSION. THE HIGH COURT ALSO FOUND THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED ON 25-10-1996 UNDER RULE 14 OF THE SAID RULES WERE ALSO NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE HIGH COURT FOUND THAT RULE 17 APPLIES TO THE CASES WHERE A PERSON WAS INITIALLY ENGAGED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON CONTRACT BASIS FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD AND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY APPOINTED TO THE SAME OR ANOTHER POST IN A SUBSTANTIVE CAPACITY IN A PENSION ABLE ESTABLISHMENT WITHOUT INTERRUPTION OF HIS DUTY. THE HIGH COURT A TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ENGAGEMENT ON CONTRACT BASIS AND SUBSEQUENT APPOINTMENT TO THE SAME OR ANOTHER POST IN A SUBSTANTIVE CAPACITY SHOULD BE UNDER THE SAME GOVERNMENT. IN OUR VIEW, THE INTERPRETATION OF RULE 17 PLACED BY THE HIGH COURT IS CORRECT AND IN THAT VIEW THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DOES NOT CALL FOR INTERFERENCE. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL. IT IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 3. IN OUR VIEW, THE INTERPRETATION OF RULE 17 PLACED BY THE HIGH COURT IS CORRECT AND IN THAT VIEW THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DOES NOT CALL FOR INTERFERENCE. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL. IT IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 3. AT THIS STAGE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT PURSUANT TO THE ORDER MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL, PENSIONARY BENEFITS WERE GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT AND THERE MAY NOT BE ANY RECOVERY OF THE EXCESS AMOUNT ALREADY PAID. WE DIRECT THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT RECOVER THE EXCESS AMOUNT OF PENSION PAID PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL. EXCEPT THIS, IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT SHALL REMAIN UNDISTURBED. NO COSTS.