Judgment :- Gafoor, J. The delay in foiling the appeal is condoned as per order in C.M.P.No.4885/1998. We heard the Government Pleader and Smt. Elizebeth Mathai Idiculla appearing for the respondent. This appeal is filed against the judgment in O.P.451/1998 D directing payment of the D.C.R.G. due to the petitioner less liability which has been fixed within three years of his retirement with 12% interest with effect from 1.6.90. 2. The respondent/writ petitioner retired on 31.5.87. As per the G.O.No.(Rt) No.557/86/PW & T dated 27-4-86 liability of 4,400/- had been fixed on the respondent. This was before the date of his retirement. By another order dated 13.7.88, liability amounting to Rs.4,179.23 had been fixed. According to Note 3 to Rule 3 of Part III K.S.R., liability can be fixed within three years of retirement. But yet another liability of Rs.15,696.98 has been fixed as per Ext.P1 G.O.(Rt) No.496/91/PW & T dated 12.4.91. Accordingly learned single judge quashed fixation of the liability as per Ext.P1 and directed the payment of D.C.R.G. and upholding the liability fixed as per the orders dated 27.4.86 and 13.7.88. Learned Single Judge also directed payment of the balance amount with 12% interest from 1.6.90 onwards, the date of completion of 3 years of the retirement of the respondent, as no liability could have been fixed, thereafter. 3. In the impugned judgment, it is contended that show cause notice has been issued on the respondent within 3 years period made mention of in Note 3 to Rule 3,Part III of K.S.R. and Ext.P1 is the culmination of the proceedings initiated in terms of the said notice. Therefore quantification in terms of Ext.P1 shall be taken as one made within the period of three years. 4. We are unable to accept this contention. Quantification made mention of in the said note is the real fixation of the liability after affording an opportunity. In other words, final order fixing the liability ought to have been passed within the time limit provided in Note 3, Rule 3 of Part III K.S.R. going by the date of Ext. P1 order, it is far later than the 3 year period allowed. Therefore, learned single Judge was perfectly justified in directing payment of D.C.R.G. ignoring the amount quantified in Ext.P1. 5. P1 order, it is far later than the 3 year period allowed. Therefore, learned single Judge was perfectly justified in directing payment of D.C.R.G. ignoring the amount quantified in Ext.P1. 5. The learned Government Pleader further submits that the payment of interest at 12% is too high and there was no reason to direct the payment of interest from 1.6.90. Of course, we are satisfied that taking in to account the prevailing rate of interest, 12% interest awarded by the learned Single Judge is too high. But no liability could have been fixed after 1.6.1990. The Government ought to have paid the D.C.R.G. payable to the petitioner as on the said date. Therefore, there is no reason why interest shall not be paid from 1.6.1990, the ultimate date fixed by the Statute beyond which no liability could be fixed on the retired person. Taking into account the prevailing rate of interest, we are of the view that interest payable to the first respondent shall be at 6% p.a. Writ Appeal is allowed as above. The amount due shall be paid within three months.