JUDGMENT : C.T. Ravikumar, J. The petitioner's husband died in harness on 2.7.1997 while working: as a conductor under the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Thereupon, the petitioner was given compassionate appointment by the first respondent. This writ petition has been filed mainly challenging the recovery effected by the respondents from the death-cum-retirement gratuity payable to the petitioner on account of the death of her husband and also from the pension arrears, under different heads. After the death of the petitioner's husband, the DCRG and other benefits payable were admitted as per Ext. P1 dated 9.4.1999. As per Ext. P1, an amount of Rs. 25,620/- was admitted towards the DCRG, but, it is stated therein that the entire admitted DCRG, would be adjusted towards the liability of the deceased-employee mentioned specifically therein. The heads of recovery have been shown thereunder as excess pay recovery, funeral expenses, monetary value of increment bar, short remittance of Co-operative society dues. It is submitted that talking into account the fact that the amount due to the Co-operative society from the deceased viz., Rs. 5253/- was paid by the petitioner herein to the Co-operative Society, the said amount was subsequently returned to the petitioner. Ext. P1 would also reveal that it was proposed to adjust, rather, recover an amount of Rs. 29.864/- from the pension arrears of the deceased payable to the petitioner. Ext. P2 would reveal that the amount thus proposed to be adjusted from the DCRG and pension arrears were, in fact, adjusted in terms of Ext. P1 from the DCRG as also from the pension arrears. It is aggrieved by the aforesaid action on the part of the respondents that this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. No counter-affidavit has been filed in this writ petition. The specific contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not served with any notice for the purpose of effecting recovery from the DCRG. That apart, it is specifically stated that no consent was also given for that purpose. In short, according to the petitioner, in the aforesaid circumstances, no recovery could have been effected from the DCRG admitted as per Ext. P1. As already noticed, certain amounts were recovered from the DCRG on the ground of excess recovery. That apart, it is specifically stated that no consent was also given for that purpose. In short, according to the petitioner, in the aforesaid circumstances, no recovery could have been effected from the DCRG admitted as per Ext. P1. As already noticed, certain amounts were recovered from the DCRG on the ground of excess recovery. Under what circumstances the respondents have taken such a decision to effect recovery was also not let known to the petitioner at any time, prior to the recovery. There is nothing on record to show that recovery ordered to be made was towards legally recoverable amount ascertained, in accordance with the prescribed procedures. The details with respect to monetary value of increment bar and short remittance were also not available. Whether the punishment of increment bar was imposed on the deceased husband of the petitioner while he was in service and under what circumstances the said punishment could not be implemented are also hot specifically stated in Ext. P1. At any rate, in respect of the said subject, no other proceedings have been communicated to the petitioner. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents to support the recovery effected from the DCRG admitted as per Ext. P1 under the different heads specifically mentioned above. The most disheartened aspect is that even after paying an amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards the funeral expenses of the deceased husband, that amount was also recovered from the DCRG The petitioner points out that despite the specific contention raised in the writ petition: that no notice was served on the petitioner even before effecting recovery from the DCRG, the respondents have not chosen to file a counter-affidavit refuting the claims and contentions of the petitioner. Relying on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Badarudeen Vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Another it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that recovery could be effected from the DCRG admitted to an employee only in the manner prescribed in Rule 3, Note 3, Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (for short the 'Rules'). It was held thereunder that under Note 3 Rule 3 of Part III of the Rules, 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 his/her becoming pensioner. It was held thereunder that under Note 3 Rule 3 of Part III of the Rules, 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 his/her becoming pensioner. At any rate, the liabilities of a pensioner should be quantified and intimated to him within the said specific period. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that such a quantification can be done only with notice to the concerned party. True that in this case, the petitioner's husband died in harness. Even then, before effecting any recovery from the DCRG admitted as per Ext. P1, the principles of natural justice could have been followed by the respondents. Evidently, in this case, recoveries had been effected after the period prescribed under Note 3, Rule 3, Part III of KSR. There is nothing of record which would suggest that liability was quantified and intimated prior to the expiry of the period prescribed under the above provision. The specific contention of the petitioner is that recovery was effected in total disregard to the prescribed procedures under Note 3, Rule 3, Part III of the Rules. If that be so, in the light of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Badarudeen's case (supra), the recovery effected from the DCRG admitted as per Ext. P1 cannot be sustained. An amount of Rs. 5253/- was paid to the petitioner by the respondents. Thus, from the admitted DCRG, an amount of Rs. 20,367/- was recovered. In view of the fact that said recovery was effected violating the procedures prescribed under Note 3, Rule 3; Part III of the Rules and also without following the principles of natural justice, the respondents are liable to refund the amount recovered from the DCRG admitted as per Ext. P1 to the petitioner. 3. As noticed hereinbefore, it was also proposed to effect recovery from the pension arrears to the tune of Rs. 29,864/-. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that subsequently, an amount of Rs. 10.630/- was paid to the petitioner by the respondents. Therefore, in effect, only an amount of Rs. 19,234/- was recovered from the pension arrears. A perusal of Ext. 29,864/-. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that subsequently, an amount of Rs. 10.630/- was paid to the petitioner by the respondents. Therefore, in effect, only an amount of Rs. 19,234/- was recovered from the pension arrears. A perusal of Ext. P1 would reveal that the said amount was proposed to be recovered on the ground of excess payment of subsistence allowance for the period from 7-1994 to 8-1995. Before going into the legal action in effecting recovery from the pension arrears on the ground of excess payment of subsistence allowance, it is to be noted that the petitioner was not at all intimated as to how the said amount had become recoverable as excess payment. What exactly was the amount due to the petitioner and when under what circumstances the amount was paid in excess were also not intimated to the petitioner. In short, sans the statement in Ext. P1 there is nothing on record which would suggest the circumstances under which the said amount: was considered as excess payment towards the subsistence allowance. Any recovery effected without due notice to the concerned party cannot be sustained at all. The specific contention of the petitioner is that before effecting recovery from the pension arrears, no proceedings have been served on the petitioner as to the ground on which it was proposed to effect such recovery from the pension arrears. So also, there is nothing on record which would reveal that the husband of the petitioner was put on notice with respect to the said aspect while he was in service. That apart, it is contended by the petitioner that in the light of the decisions of this Court in KSRTC v. Vamadevan Nair, 1996 (2) CLR 151 (Ker.) and Kerala State Warehousing Corpn. and Others Vs. Pauly John T., the action on the part of the respondents in effecting recovery on the ground of excess payment of subsistence allowance is unsustainable. The petitioner has also relied on the decision in Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. M/s. Popular Automobiles, to buttress the said contention. In fact, the Apex Court held that even in a case where the concerned employee was ultimately: found guilty, the amount paid by way of subsistence allowance could not be recovered. The petitioner has also relied on the decision in Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. M/s. Popular Automobiles, to buttress the said contention. In fact, the Apex Court held that even in a case where the concerned employee was ultimately: found guilty, the amount paid by way of subsistence allowance could not be recovered. In the decision in K.S.R.T.C. v. Vamadevan Nair (supra), it was held that: payment of subsistence allowance is a special law governing a limited field and regulating subsistence allowance to persons who are placed under suspension. In fact, that was a case whereon the KSRTC unsuccessfully attempted to defend their action in effecting recovery of the amount paid towards the subsistence allowance. It was held thereunder that Rule 55, Part I of the Rules could not be operated to deprive any person the right or privilege to which he is entitled to under any law. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the fact that payment of subsistence allowance is regulated by the Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972. It is duly recognising the liability to pay the subsistence allowance under the said act that the deceased husband of the petitioner was paid subsistence allowance and therefore, the said right of the concerned person could not have been taken away relying on any other provisions under the Kerala Service Rules by virtue of the decision in K.S.R.T.C. v. Vamadevan Nair (supra). In this case, what was done is recovery of the amount paid under that count in blatant violation of principles of natural justice. Even in case the deceased husband was imposed with a penalty, that should not have the reason for effecting recovery of subsistence allowance from the pension, arrears. In short, going by the decisions referred above, I am of the view that the recovery effected from the DCRG admitted to the deceased. husband as also from the pension arrears, pursuant to Ext. P1 is absolutely unsustainable. Consequently, there will be a direction to the respondents to take appropriate action to refund an amount of Rs. 39,601 (Rs. 20367+19234) which was already recovered as is obvious from Ext. P2 to the petitioner. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.