Point of Law: It is the use of the word 'Rules' in afore extracted portion, which is now sought to be explained to mean 'Kerala Service Rules'.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner served as the Vice Chancellor of the National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS) and retired on 31.12.2012. Subsequent to this, he was served with Ext.P4 letter, dated 11.04.2013, asking to repay Rs.8,73,214/-, citing the reason that this represents the amount of pension which he drew from the Kerala University -where he worked as the Head of the Department prior to being selected as the Vice Chancellor of NUALS -simultaneous with his salary.

2. The petitioner asserts that Ext.P4 is the result of a misdirection because he was appointed under Section 27(7) of the National University of Advanced Legal Studies Act, 2005 ('the Act' for short); and hence that, only if it had been specifically prescribed in his appointment order, or at least through another order issued under its ambit, that he was not eligible to draw salary adscititious to the pension from his earlier service, could any recovery be attempted.

3. The petitioner adds that, therefore, when he received Ext.P2, he addressed the Registrar of the NUALS, through Ext.P5; but again Ext.P6 demand was issued and, therefore, he preferred Ext.P7 reminder. He says that when this was also not heeded, he approached the Vice-Chancellor of the NUALS through Ext.P8, explaining that the recovery against him is impermissible, not merely because it is statutorily interdicted, but at least six earlier Vice Chancellors of the University had enjoyed the same benefits as had been offered to him. He points out that, however, the afore representation was not considered by the Vice-Chancellor, but that he seems to have placed it before the 2nd respondent – Chancellor; and that subsequently, the Registrar General of High Court of Kerala addressed Ext.P9 to him, merely communicating that said Authority has “ordered to reject the representation dated 01.12.2014”(sic).

4. The petitioner thus prays that, Ext.P9 be set aside and it be declared that he is not liable to pay any amounts, as demanded in Ext.P4.

5. I have heard Sri.P.Ramakrishnan - learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.Elvin Peter.P.J - learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri.Pauly Mathew Muricken – learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent.

6. Sri.Elvin Peter P.J -learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 – Chancellor of the NUALS, in response to the afore contentions of the petitioner, argued that Ext.P9 is irreproachable because the petitioner's appointment can only be construed to be within the rigour of Rule 100 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR). He submitted that this is unmistakable because, the petitioner himself, admittedly, gave up his claim for Dearness Allowance from the Kerala University; and thus, that he was fully conscious of the fact that his remuneration was fixed in terms of the afore Rules. He argued that, in any event, it is implicit that the petitioner could not have drawn pension from the Kerala University, as also the remuneration from the NUALS, at the same time; and that as long as Ext.P2 appointment order made it luculent that, his pension amount will be deducted as per Rules, it can only be reckoned that the said “Rules” refers to the “KSR”.

7. Sri.Elvin Peter.P.J then explained that before the pay of the petitioner was fixed in the year 2009, the remuneration payable to the Vice Chancellors of certain other Universities were also taken into account, as also the relevant Rules governing the Vice Chancellors of the Cochin University and the Kerala University; and that in both these cases, the KSR was applicable. He submitted that, therefore, it is an implied condition in Ext.P2 appointment order that the provisions of the KSR would apply; however, conceding expressly that, as far as the 'NUALS' is concerned, otherwise, the said Rules will not bind it.

8. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the submissions of Sri.Elvin Peter.P.J as afore because, as rightly argued by Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, the petitioner's pay and remuneration are gove