JUDGMENT : Syam Kumar V.M., J 1. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 28.06.2018 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.33935 of 2017. Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P. (C). 2. Appellant, a retired District Judge, had preferred the WP (C) alleging denial of full salary towards leave surrender. After his retirement as a District Judge, the appellant was re-employed as a member of the Advisory Board constituted under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short 'KAAPA'). The service conditions of the member of the Advisory Board are prescribed by Exhibit P2 Rules. As per Rule 6(2) of the said Rules, a member of the Advisory Board is entitled to draw pay and allowances equivalent to the pay and allowances drawn by him at the time of retirement and as per Rule 100 of Part III KSR, a re-employed pensioner will be given pay and other allowances attached to the re-employed post minus the monthly pension he was drawing for his prior service. When the appellant surrendered his earned leave for 30 days, the 2 nd respondent, by Exhibit P3 sanctioned only the re-employment pay i.e. Rs.30,080/- which is only the amount equivalent to the pay after deducting Rs.28,850/- the monthly pension amount of the appellant as leave salary on the premise that in the event of re-employment, his actual pay is not the re-employment pay as fixed by the Accountant General, but it is equivalent to what he drew last at the time of his retirement as prescribed in Exhibit P2 Rules, which includes the monthly pension amount also. Contending that he is entitled to get the pension amount he was receiving, also treated as part of the salary, and the same is to be taken into account while calculating the earned leave surrender salary, appellant filed the W.P.(C) seeking the following reliefs: "i. call for the records leading to Ext.P3 and Ext.P6 and quash Ext.P6 in toto and Ext.P3 to the extent it is against the petitioner by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. ii. declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the pension amount also treated as part of the salary in his re-employed post and be taken into account while calculating the earned leave surrender salary. iii. ii. declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the pension amount also treated as part of the salary in his re-employed post and be taken into account while calculating the earned leave surrender salary. iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to treat the monthly pension amount of the petitioner also as part of his salary in the re-employed post, count that amount also while calculating the earned leave surrender salary and disburse Rs.28,850/- or such other amount as the balance of the earned leave surrender salary authorized as per Ext.P3 with 18% Interest per annum from the date of Ext.P3, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court. iv. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to pass orders on Ext.P7 application and to disburse the due amounts, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court. and v. grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Including the costs of this Writ Petition (Civil)." 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, inter alia holding that Rule 92 read with Rule 100 entitles the appellant only for the pay which he would have drawn had he been performing the duty, and had the appellant been on duty, he would have been eligible only for the pre-retirement pay minus pension. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that the pension shall not be deducted from the salary since he is not getting a pension for the leave surrendered is unsustainable. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the W.P.(C), this Writ Appeal is filed. 4. Heard Sri.Enoch David Simon Joel, Advocate for the appellant and Sri.K.P.Harish, Senior Government Pleader for the 1 st respondent. 5. The learned counsel or the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition. It is submitted that earned leave is to be calculated on full pay, and the full pay of a re- employed pensioner is the pay drawn by him on the date of retirement. Being a re-employed pensioner, in the manner of disbursement, the pension he receives will be deducted from his full pay, and only the amount due to him will be paid as pension plus the balance due. Being a re-employed pensioner, in the manner of disbursement, the pension he receives will be deducted from his full pay, and only the amount due to him will be paid as pension plus the balance due. The reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on Rule 100 of Part III of KSR is termed as erroneous, and it is submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have placed reliance on Rule 92 of Part III of KSR, which dealt with the method of calculating leave and salary. Rule 100 of Part III of KSR, on the other hand, dealt with the manner in which the pay is to be distributed for a re-employed pensioner. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the said essential difference between the provisions. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge overlooked the fact that there has been a violation of the mandate of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution insofar as other members of the KAAPA had been paid amounts higher than what has been paid to the appellant, and to that extent, there was discrimination. It is submitted that there are no enabling rules or orders entitling the 2nd respondent to withhold or deny Rs.28,850/-, which is the monthly pension portion, while granting the earned leave surrender salary to the appellant and the 2nd respondent was not entitled to effect such a deduction. The learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate the irrational and arbitrary approach adopted by the 2 nd respondent, and the impugned judgment is hence liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference and that the Writ Appeal is only to be dismissed. It is submitted that the appellant had retired on 30.06.2010 as a District Judge and he was re-employed as a member of the Advisory Board constituted under the KAAPA. It is submitted that the appellant had retired on 30.06.2010 as a District Judge and he was re-employed as a member of the Advisory Board constituted under the KAAPA. As per Rule 6(2) of the said Rules, a member of the Advisory Board who is a retired District Judge is entitled to draw salary and allowances equivalent to the salary and allowances drawn at the time of retirement and in terms of Rule 100 of KSR Part III, it is submitted that as per Rule 100 of KSR Part III, a re-employed pensioner is entitled to draw salary and allowance equivalent to the salary and allowance drawn at the time of his retirement, minus the monthly pension he is receiving. They are entitled to DA on full pay and HRA, and CCA as admissible from time to time and also for periodical increments. The appellant was authorised a salary and allowance equivalent to the salary and allowance drawn at the time of retirement as a District Judge, minus the monthly pension admitted. On the date of his appointment as a member of the Advisory Board of KAAPA, he was drawing Rs.28,850/- as his monthly pension. Therefore, he was authorised re-employment pay of Rs.28,850/- with effect from 01.02.2013 ie., the date of appointment as a member of KAAPA Advisory Board and subsequently the same was raised to Rs.30,080/- with effect from 01.02.2014 and Rs.31,460/- from 01.02.2015 after granting increments as per rules. The re-employment pay due to the appellant on 01.09.2014 was Rs.30,080/- and the surrender of earned leave had been sanctioned based on the clarification of the Government in Circular dated 01.08.1996. As regards the alleged discrimination, it is submitted that the appellant cannot compare himself with another member who was not a re-employed person, whose surrender of earned leave was arrived at the rate of his monthly salary. It is thus prayed that none of the contentions raised are sustainable and the Writ Appeal is only to be dismissed. 7. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered the contentions put forth. The learned Single Judge had proceeded to consider the question whether, on surrender of earned leave, a re- employed pensioner is entitled to be paid the entire pre-retirement pay without deducting his monthly pension towards the leave salary. 7. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered the contentions put forth. The learned Single Judge had proceeded to consider the question whether, on surrender of earned leave, a re- employed pensioner is entitled to be paid the entire pre-retirement pay without deducting his monthly pension towards the leave salary. The learned Single Judge had taken note of Rule 100 of Part III, which governs the pay of re-employed pensioners and had concluded that by virtue of the said provision, whenever a pensioner is re-employed, his pay on such re-employment would be fixed at the pay drawn at the time of his retirement minus basic pension. He is also entitled to Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance, calculated on the pre-retirement pay without reducing the pension. After taking note of Rule No.77 (iii) of Part I KSR, which relates to earned leave, as well as Rule No.12(17) that defines leave salary, i.e., the monthly amount paid by the Government to an officer on leave, the learned Single Judge had concluded that the monthly amount paid by the Government is pre-retirement pay minus pension as provided under Rule 100 of Part III KSR and hence even though the appellant had earned leave by performing duty, leave salary that would be admissible to the appellant would be only an amount equal to the pre-retirement pay minus pension. Relying on Exhibit P2 Rules of 2011, it was held that the members who are retired District Judges would be eligible for pre-retirement pay minus their monthly pension. We do not find any error in the said reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge. We concur with the view of the learned Single Judge that the duty pay of the appellant can only be the pay which he would have drawn if he were on duty. As regards a person who is re-employed, he is governed by Rule 100 of Part III of KSR, and he will be eligible only for the pre-retirement pay minus pension towards the leave salary. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that any payment, inclusive of pension towards surrender of earned leave, would violate Rule 100 of Part III is valid and cogent. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that any payment, inclusive of pension towards surrender of earned leave, would violate Rule 100 of Part III is valid and cogent. We note that the monthly pay of a member of the Advisory Board of KAAPA is pay and allowance at the time of retirement, minus the monthly pension. No Government Order, Circular or any binding legal norm has been pointed out to support the contention that the amount of pension is to be treated as part of the salary. As regards the alleged discrimination against the appellant on the premise that another member appointed along with the appellant was given a higher amount as surrender leave salary, we note that the said individual, who is not a re-employed pensioner, stood on a different footing and was hence entitled to the same. We thus find no error or perversity in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge meriting any interference. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed.