JUDGMENT B.M. Thulasidas, J. 1. The petitioner took charge as District Medical Officer (Health) Kanhangad on 26-12-1991 and went on leave preparatory to retirement for 50 days. He rejoined duty on 20-3-1992 and retired on 31-3-1992. He was therefore on duty only for 11 days in the month of March, 1992. The Accountant General sanctioned him an amount of Rs. 28,075/- as gratuity to be disbursed to him on production of N.L.C. which the respondents 2 and 3 should have issued within two months of his retirement. But then he did not get the amount. He made a representation, copy of which is Ext. P1, on 22-7-1992. He sent reminders on 18-11-1992 and 15-11-1993. Later he got a copy of the letter from the third respondent addressed to the second respondent that internal audit is due from 1-3-1992 onwards and by reason of that the N.L.C. could not be issued to him. He also requested the second respondent to expedite the audit. But then nothing was done. Later he sent a letter to the second respondent, copy of which is Ext. P3, on receipt of which the second respondent sent a letter to the third respondent, copy of which is Ext. P4, requesting to forward the N.L.C. This was indeed an 'eye wash' because it was after receiving the communication dt. 4-3-1993, the third respondent sent Ext. P2 requesting to arrange the audit. It is "submitted that all his attempts to get the gratuity have failed. The conduct of the respondents is illegal. Rs has therefore sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue the N.L.C. and disburse gratuity with 18% interest p. a. from 1-6-1992 till payment. 2. In the statement filed on behalf of the second respondent the essential facts have been admitted. For the purpose of drawing D.C.R.G. Liability / non liability certificate for the period from 1-4-1989 to 31-3-1992 is required. During the above period, the petitioner had served in four different places. The District Medical Officers, Ernakulam and Kasargode were requested to forward liability/non - liability certificate as early as on 4-5-1991. They were also remitted atleast on five occasions. On 15-7-1993 the District Medical Officer, (Health) Ernakulam sent the N.L.C, but then the District Officer, Kasargode has not so far issued the same stating that the audit of family welfare accounts and of multi purpose fund has not been concluded. They were also remitted atleast on five occasions. On 15-7-1993 the District Medical Officer, (Health) Ernakulam sent the N.L.C, but then the District Officer, Kasargode has not so far issued the same stating that the audit of family welfare accounts and of multi purpose fund has not been concluded. The certificate will be issued to him as soon as information is received from the above office. 3. Heard. 4. A doctor who has retired from service as District Medical Officer has approached this Court with a grievance against his own colleagues, whose conduct is anything but helpful. The Accountant General indeed has admitted an amount of Rs. 28,075/- to him as D.C.R.G., which has not so far been disbursed for want of N.L.C., which had to be issued by respondents 2 and 3. The sole excuse for the delay is that the required clearance was not obtained from D.M.O. (Health) (Ernakulam and Kasargode. But in the statement it is stated that N.L.C. was obtained from D.M.O. Ernakulam, but has not been obtained from D.M.O. Kasargode, who was reported to have informed that the audit of the Family Welfare account and multi-purpose fund had not been concluded and it is expected to be over soon. In the statement filed on behalf of the second respondent it is also assured that the liability/non-liability certificate will be issued positively within a period of two months. 5. Disbursement of D.C.R.G. is subject to production of a non-liability certificate by the retired employee. Indeed the amount due by way of D.C.R.G is liable to be adjusted towards his liability, if the same has been determined and quantified as per the relevant rules. Under ruling 1 to R.116 "if the liabilities could not be finalised but could be estimated at the time of retirement, pension and death cum retirement gratuity will be released after accepting a surety bond or cash deposit or after withholding from the death cum retirement gratuity the estimated amount of the outstanding dues plus 25% thereof." In cases not covered by rulings 1 and 2, the pension and death cum retirement gratuity will have to be released provisionally after withholding from the D.C.R.G. gratuity in the proportion indicated in the paragraphs. Under ruling 4, "In all cases where the procedure referred to in Para.(1) or Para.(3) is proposed to be followed, the pension sanctioning authority will, not later than a week after the retirement of the employee, intimate the Accountant General, without full amount or percentage of the death cum retirement gratuity to be withheld." Under ruling 5, "In all cases where the liabilities could not be assessed and fixed before retirement of the government employees, efforts should be made to assess and adjust the recoverable dues within a period of one year from the date of retirement of government employee concerned. If in any case the liability could not be assessed and adjusted within one year, the amount withheld from the death cum retirement gratuity or the surety bond or cash deposit accepted under Para.(1) or (3) above will be released. Disciplinary action shall be taken against the employees responsible for the failure to assess and adjust the liabilities within the prescribed period." Under ruling 6: "If in any case the amount withheld from the death cum retirement gratuity or the cash deposit, or the surely bond taken from the employee has been released on the expiry of one year after the date of retirement without the liabilities being finalised and adjusted, or it is not adequate to cover the liabilities finally fixed, action will be taken against him under R.3 of Part III, K. S. R. to make up the loss by withholding, withdrawing or effecting recoveries from the pension sanctioned. If action under R.3 ibid is not possible due to the expiry of the time limit prescribed for such action, or due to any other reason, the retired employee will be proceeded against in a Civil Court for recovering the pecuniary loss caused to Government." 6. It was submitted by counsel for the petitioner that if the liability was not assessed or fixed within one year after retirement, the amount due by way of D.C.R.G. has to be disbursed, and in support he relied upon Ruling 5 to R.116. In my view this contention does not seem to be correct. Ruling 5 applies to cases where Para.3 had been invoked. In other words, it should be a case where D.C.R.G. had been withheld either under Para.1 or Para.3, where liability could not be assessed within one year. In my view this contention does not seem to be correct. Ruling 5 applies to cases where Para.3 had been invoked. In other words, it should be a case where D.C.R.G. had been withheld either under Para.1 or Para.3, where liability could not be assessed within one year. In my view the contention that the retired employee is entitled to the entire amount allowed as D.C.R.G. if his liability was not assessed or determined within one year of the date of his retirement is unacceptable. 7. Note 2 to R.3 says that "the word 'pension' used in this rule does not include D.C.R.G. Under Note 3 "the liabilities of an employee should be quantified either before or after retirement and intimated to him before retirement if possible or after retirement within a period of three years on becoming pensioner. The liabilities of a pensioner should be quantified and intimated to him". Ruling 3 states that "the Note 2 above does not mean that the employee's (or pensioner's) consent should be obtained for recovering the liabilities from the death cum retirement gratuity payable to him. What is contemplated is only a communication of such liabilities to him so as to enable him to submit his explanation before the recovery is effected. It should be specifically stated in the communication that if no reply is received within 30 days of its issue, it will be presumed that the employee (or pensioner) has no explanation to offer and that further action will be taken on that basis". Indeed liability could be recovered without departmental or judicial proceedings only if such liability was fixed after giving him a reasonable opportunity to explain and recourse could be had to the D.C.R.G. if it remained undisbursed in full or a part of it has been withheld under para 3 of R.116. If D.C.R.G. is not available, recovery would be possible only from the employee's pension subject of course to compliance of the other relevant provisions. 8. In my view Note 2 and 3 to R.3 need not have to be read subject to R.116 which only covers cases coming under para 5 of the said rule. 9. Now coming to the facts of this case, the petitioner's D.C.R.G. is still undisbursed. 8. In my view Note 2 and 3 to R.3 need not have to be read subject to R.116 which only covers cases coming under para 5 of the said rule. 9. Now coming to the facts of this case, the petitioner's D.C.R.G. is still undisbursed. If liability has not been determined and no action has so far been taken to do so the non completion of audit relating to the family welfare account and multi - purpose fund in the office of the D.M.O. Kasargode cannot provide an adequate ground for the delay to issue the N.L.C. Indeed there is not even a hint or whisper anywhere that any liability is outstanding which he has to satisfy and therefore in the circumstances I am of the view that the respondents 2 and 3 were not justified to delay the issuance of the N.L.C. to enable him to withdraw the amount as D.C.R.G. 10. I direct the 2nd respondent to issue N.L.C. to the petitioner within a month of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This will be without prejudice to the right to recover the liability, if any, due from his pension according to the relevant rules. In the particular circumstances I am not inclined to allow his claim for interest on the gratuity amount.