JUDGMENT : Thomas P. Joseph, J. Defendants in O.S. No.59 of 2006 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Kasargod are the appellants. They suffered a decree by way of damages for delayed payment of pensionary benefits to the respondent-plaintiff who retired as Headmaster from S.A.T. High School, Manjeswhar on 31.03.2002 (though he attained superannuation on 30.01.2002). 2. Respondent claimed that he worked as HSA in the same School from 19.06.1972 to 04.04.1996 and as Headmaster from 05.04.1996 till his retirement on 30.03.2002. He claimed that he had submitted his pension papers on 13.02.2002 through the Headmaster of the SAT High School. According to him he could not submit the pension papers on time since his Service Book which was with the appellants was not made available to the authority concerned on time in spite of several representations he made. It is also his contention that he got the pensionary benefits after much delay thereby causing loss to him. 3. Appellants contended that there was delay in the submission of pension papers and that there was no delay on their part in processing the papers and granting the pensionary benefits. Trial court found that there was delay on the part of appellants in that they did not make available the Service Book of respondent on time and that resulted in the belated submission of pension papers. Accordingly respondent was granted a decree allowing him to realise damages by way of interest on the pensionary benefits due to the delayed payment. That was confirmed by the learned District Judge, Kasargod in A.S. No.80 of 2007. Hence this Second Appeal. 4. Learned Government Pleader, for the appellants contended that as per Note 3 of Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (for short, "the KSR") appellants have three years' time for settlement of retiremental benefits to a Government employee and hence the contention of respondent that there is delayed payment cannot stand since admittedly pensionary benefits were paid to the respondent within the said period of three years. It is also contended that respondent was bound to submit his pension papers within one year preceding the date of his retirement. But in this case it was presented belatedly and it took time to process the pension papers since liability of the respondent had to be settled. 5. It is also contended that respondent was bound to submit his pension papers within one year preceding the date of his retirement. But in this case it was presented belatedly and it took time to process the pension papers since liability of the respondent had to be settled. 5. Learned counsel for respondent who appeared on the application to condone the delay would contend that there is no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the courts below as it involved no substantial question of law. 6. It is not disputed that though respondent had to retire on 30.01.2002 he actually retired from service on 31.3.2002 and he submitted his pension papers only on 13.02.2002 through proper channel. But it is seen that he had made representations to the authorities concerned on 09.11.2000 to regularize his service as Headmaster from 01.04.1996 and no proper action was taken on time on the said request. It is also seen that on several occasions respondent had corresponded to appropriate authorities who took up the matter with their superior authorities to make available the service book on time but that was not done. Evidence on record would show that the service book of respondent ultimately reached the 5th appellant only by 20.07.2002 (while respondent retired from the service on 31.03.2002). It has come out in evidence that even the 5th appellant had asked the respondent on 19.10.2002 to refund Rs.12,640/- as excess amount drawn by him due to irregularity committed by the 4th appellant. Exhibit A1 is the copy of application dated 09.11.2000 preferred by the respondent asking the authorities concerned to regularize his service. Exhibit A2 is a letter dated 24.08.2001 from the Deputy Director of Education informing his superior authority to make available the service book of respondent. Exhibit A1 request was forwarded to the Director on 13.03.2001. Exhibit A3 is the copy of letter dated 29.04.2002 sent by the respondent and addressed to the Secretary, General Education Department cancelling Ext.A1, representation. 7. Exhibit B1 is the copy of Government Order dated 03.07.1999 whereby the service of respondent was regularised and notional promotion was granted to him with effect from 05.04.1996. In Ext.B5, letter dated 21.04.2003 of the 5th appellant, it is stated that it was due to the delay in getting the service book of the respondent that his pensionary benefits could not be released. In Ext.B5, letter dated 21.04.2003 of the 5th appellant, it is stated that it was due to the delay in getting the service book of the respondent that his pensionary benefits could not be released. Exhibit B6 is another letter dated 25.10.2003 issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Kasargod to the Headmaster of the SAT High School wherefrom respondent retired stating that LC/NLC were not forwarded till then. Exhibit B7 is the copy of the letter dated 25.10.2003 from the Headmaster of SAT School to the Deputy Director of Education. Exhibit B8 is the liability certificate dated 25.10.2003 fixing liability of respondent at Rs.5,533/- (as against the claim for Rs.12,640/-). Exhibit B9 is the copy of letter from the Deputy Director of Education to the Headmaster of SAT School where it is stated that there was delay in forwarding the rectification report which caused hardship to the respondent. 8. Thus there is sufficient evidence on record to show that there way inordinate delay on the part of appellants in making available the Service Book of respondent, fixing liability of respondent and that ultimately resulted in the delay in payment of pensionary benefits. It is in the above circumstances that trial court found that respondent is entitled to get damages by way of interest. 9. I have been referred to Note 3 of Rule 3 of Part III of the KSR. What is stated therein is that the liability 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. That provision does not absolve appellants from liability to pay damages by way of interest due to delay in payment of pensionary benefits. 10. On hearing learned Government Pleader and learned counsel and going through the judgments under challenge I do not find any substantial question of law involved requiring admission of the appeal Second Appeal is dismissed. All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed.