JUDGMENT : P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. The correctness and sustainability of Exhibit P2 order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.24/2015 preferred by the respondent herein, directing to pay 'interest' on the allegedly delayed payment of DCRG is the subject matter of challenge, at the instance of the Government. 2. Heard Sri. T.Rajasekharan Nair, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court, the following interim order was passed: "The learned Senior Government Pleader is required to produce a copy of the G.O. (MS) No.167/2001/G.Edn dated 11.05.01 (which has been referred to both in Annexure A5 as well as Annexure A6). The learned Senior Government Pleader is also required to explain, after getting instructions, as to the circumstances under which Annexure A6 had to be passed by the Government, if the issue has already dealt with and covered by the earlier G.O. dated 11.05.01. Post next week." 4. Pursuant to the said order, an additional statement has been filed by the Government Pleader, also producing a copy of the G.O. (MS) No.167/2001/G.Edn dated 11.05.01. The factual position has been sought to be explained in the said statement as well, with reference to the relevant Rule, i.e. Rule 7(3) of Chapter VIII of KER and the sequence of events. 5. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit, producing a copy of the very same G.O. as Exhibit R1(a) and contends that, in view of the said G.O. issued way back in the year 2001, there was absolutely no reason for the Accountant General to have raised any audit objection. For the very same reason, it was not necessary for the Government to have issued the G.O. dated 20.08.2014 (Annexure A6 in the O.A.). As such, there is culpable delay on the part of the Department in issuing the 'NLC' (No Liability Certificate) and in turn disbursing the DCRG. This has been rightly remedied by the Tribunal by passing Exhibit P2 order, which, according to the respondent, is not assailable under any circumstance. 6. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the respondent was working as a Senior Superintendent in the Office of the Assistant Educational Officer, Chittarikkal, Kasargod District and on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from the service on 31.03.2013. 6. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the respondent was working as a Senior Superintendent in the Office of the Assistant Educational Officer, Chittarikkal, Kasargod District and on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from the service on 31.03.2013. The DCRG was sanctioned by the competent authority as per Annexure A1 dated 01.10.2013, but the 'NLC' was not issued referring to 'audit objection' raised by the fifth respondent. As a natural consequence, the DCRG was not disbursed, which made the respondent to approach the Tribunal by filing the O.A, as mentioned above. 7. The circumstances were sought to be explained by the State/Department by filing a reply statement, also producing copies of the relevant materials including Annexure A6 G.O. dated 20.08.2014, whereby the Government had come to the rescue of persons like the applicant, to facilitate payment of salary and such other benefits, despite the rule position as to the Teacher/Student ratio required to be maintained with reference to the effective minimum strength for linguistic minority Schools. But, without making any specific reference to the contents of the said G.Os and the proceedings, an observation was made by the Tribunal that there was no valid ground for withholding the DCRG, in turn directing to pay interest on the due amount, to the extent as ordered therein. We have gone through the verdict; which is too brief and there is no discussion on the facts and events. Altogether, it contains just 16 sentences' distributed in 'three' paragraphs. In the said circumstance, it has become necessary to examine the factual aspects involved. 8. By virtue of Rule 7(3) of Chapter VIII KER, the minimum Teacher strength was required to be 10', with reference to the number of students and this was to be maintained in the Schools to have them treated as 'economic' and to save them from adverse consequences. The respondent retired from service on 31.03.2013, but 'NLC' could not be issued based on the 'audit objection' raised by the fifth respondent. It was in the said circumstance, that the position was explained by the AEO, vide Annexure A4 letter dated 06.11.2014 addressed to the Deputy Director of Education for taking further steps. The respondent retired from service on 31.03.2013, but 'NLC' could not be issued based on the 'audit objection' raised by the fifth respondent. It was in the said circumstance, that the position was explained by the AEO, vide Annexure A4 letter dated 06.11.2014 addressed to the Deputy Director of Education for taking further steps. As per Exhibit R1(a) G.O. dated 11.05.2001 (which has been produced as Exhibit P3 by the Government as well-along with the additional statement dated 01.12.16), the Rule position had been noted by the Government and in order to extend benefits to persons like the respondent herein, it was decided to reduce the Teacher/Students ratio as stipulated therein. Making a reference to the said G.O. [pursuant to the audit objection raised by the fifth respondent], it was attempted to be clarified, but the clarification given was not to the satisfaction of the Accountant General. It was in the said circumstance, that the matter was again considered by the Government as per Annexure A6 G.O. dated 20.08.2014 and the need to take appropriate steps, also by causing amendment to the KER, was felt necessary. As per the said G.O., the effective minimum strength for considering the School as 'economic' was fixed to the appropriate extent, relevant portion of which reads as follows: "During audit of Accountant General at Assistant Education Officer, Kumbala and Manjeswar of Kasargod district, it was found that in several Kannada medium schools in Kasargod district having average strength of less than 25 were treated as economic without obtaining exemption from minimum strength and regular appointments made as against the appointment of protected hands were approved. Objections were raised during the audit of Accountant General and salary of teachers thus appointed were withheld." 9. The primary question to be considered is whether there is any dispute to the Rule position, which cannot, but be answered in the 'negative'. When Rule 7(3) of Chapter VIII KER stipulates the minimum extent of Student strength in the given context, whether it could have been varied by the Government by passing an Executive order, is the next question; which cannot be answered in the 'positive'. As such (despite the issuance of Exhibit R1(a) G.O. of 2001), there was nothing wrong on the part of the Accountant General in having raised the objection with regard to the course and events. As such (despite the issuance of Exhibit R1(a) G.O. of 2001), there was nothing wrong on the part of the Accountant General in having raised the objection with regard to the course and events. However, the matter was considered by the Government and it was accordingly, that a conscious decision was taken to have the Rules amended, in turn issuing Annexure A6 G.O. to fill up the gap. It was only by virtue of the said G.O. that the field was set, to make the persons like the respondent/applicant eligible to have their appointment regularized and get the benefits disbursed accordingly. Virtually, the Government was acting to save persons like the respondent, by issuing Annexure A6 G.O. dated 20.08.2014. It was based on the said G.O., that the matter was processed and the audit objection was got cleared. The factual sequence has been explained in paragraphs 2 to 6 of the additional statement dated 01.12.2016 filed on behalf of the petitioners; pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 10.11.16. 10. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the explanation offered from the part of the State/Department is quite acceptable and there was no reason for the Tribunal to have arrived at a finding that 'no valid ground was raised' in the matter of disbursement of DCRG, that too, without any discussion. We find that Exhibit P2 Order passed by the Tribunal is not correct or sustainable and the same requires to be intercepted. Accordingly, Exhibit P2 stands set aside. 11. We take note of the position that, during the pendency of the O.A, after taking necessary steps by the Department, NLC was issued and the 'DCRG' was released to the applicant. In the said circumstance, no further orders are necessary. Original Petition stands allowed. No costs.