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. 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 governed exclusively by Section 27(7) of the 'NUALS Act'. As per this provision, the remuneration payable and other conditions of service of the Vice Chancellor, shall be as determined by the Chancellor. 9. As per this provision, the remuneration payable and other conditions of service of the Vice Chancellor, shall be as determined by the Chancellor. 9. Obviously, therefore, it was up to the Chancellor of the University to fix the remuneration and the service conditions of the petitioner and this has been done through Ext.P2 appointment order. 10. Pertinently, it is expressly conceded that, apart from Ext.P2, no other order or proceedings had been issued in relation to either the remuneration or service conditions of the petitioner. 11. When one scans Ext.P2 order, it is limpid that, under the head 'Remuneration', the following is provided: “Basic pay Rs.25,000/-and eligible DA and other permissible allowances as applicable to the officers of the University. (If the pension amount is to be deducted from the remuneration sanctioned, as per Rules, the remuneration will be paid after deducting the pension amount.” 12. It is the use of the word 'Rules' in the afore extracted portion of Ext.P2, which is now sought to be explained by Sri.Elvin Peter to mean 'Kerala Service Rules'. However, it is undisputed that Ext.P2 does not refer to the “KSR” specifically, but to the Rules as are applicable; and therefore, the real question is whether it would have any impact on the service of the petitioner. 13. Before I move forward, it is uncontested that the provisions of the “KSR” normally would not apply, unless it is specifically provided either in Ext.P2, or it had been adopted by an order of the NUALS, following the mandated procedure. Interestingly, it is admitted unequivocally by Sri.Pauly Mathew Muricken – learned Standing Counsel for the NUALS, that “KSR” has not been yet adopted to his client; and that hence, it would not automatically apply to any of the posts under its services. 14. Ineluctably, therefore, unless Ext.P2 specifically mentioned the rigor of the provisions of the “KSR” to apply to the appointment of the petitioner, it would not be possible to assume or presume -solely based on the mere fact that petitioner chose not to avail Dearness Allowance along with his pension from the Kerala University -that his appointment is modulated under the purlieus of the said Rules. This is more so because, as I have already said above, Section 27(7) is independent of the KSR and authorises and enables the Chancellor to fix any term or condition of service, as far as the Vice Chancellor is concerned, subject to his discretion to be exercised within the statutory ambit. 15. That being said, when one examines Ext.P9 -which is only a communication to the petitioner by the Registrar General of the High Court -the Chancellor of the NUALS is stated to have “ordered to reject the representation, dated 01.12.2014”. No reasons are mentioned therein as to why such rejection was ordered; and therefore, it is not possible for this Court to gather it either; though the counter pleadings on record reveal it was on account of the same reasons as argued by Sri.Elvin Peter. 16. In the afore perspective, since I am left without doubt that it are the stipulations of Section 27(7) of the 'NUALS Act' which alone would apply to the petitioner – it being also unreservedly admitted – and since Ext.P2 appointment order has in no manner mentioned the application of “KSR” qua the petitioner's appointment, this Court cannot authorise recovery from the petitioner as demanded in Ext.P4, without further enquiry. 17. I am, therefore, certain, that entire matter will require to be reconsidered by the University at the appropriate level, adverting to the specific contentions of the petitioner, as impelled by him in Exts.P5 and P8, particularly relating to the former Vice Chancellors mentioned therein; thus leading to an apposite decision in terms of law. 18. I am persuaded to order the afore course because – as disclosed by the documents on record and the pleadings of the respondents – the contentions of the petitioner, as urged by him in Ext.P5 reply, do not seem to have been even adverted to when Ext.P6 communication was issued to him; and that he, therefore, responded to the same vide Ext.P7, again requesting that it be done. When this was also not acceded to, he appears to have been with no other option but to address the Vice Chancellor of the NUALS though Ext.P8, but which transpires to have been placed by the said Authority before the 2nd respondent – Chancellor, thus culminating in Ext.P9. 19. When this was also not acceded to, he appears to have been with no other option but to address the Vice Chancellor of the NUALS though Ext.P8, but which transpires to have been placed by the said Authority before the 2nd respondent – Chancellor, thus culminating in Ext.P9. 19. It is thus indubitable that neither Ext.P5 nor Ext.P8 representations of the petitioner had obtained proper consideration of the competent Authorities of the NUALS. Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P9; with a consequential direction to the competent Authority of the University to reconsider Exts.P5 and P8 representations of the petitioner, after affording him an opportunity of being heard; thus leading to an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible. Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is completed and the resultant order communicated to the petitioner, all recovery pursuant to Ext.P4 will stand interdicted.