JUDGMENT : A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. 1. Petitioner challenges the order dated 30.07.2009 of the Lok Ayukta in complaint No. 218/2009 (Ext.P9). The complaint was filed by the 5th respondent herein seeking for a direction to issue non liability certificate within a time fixed by the Lok Ayukta and also to pay interest on illegally detained amount along with compensation. It was alleged that she retired from service on 30.11.2007 as Agricultural Field Officer, Nedumangadu Municipality. According to her, though she had submitted all necessary documents for release of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits, she was not granted non-liability certificate. She filed an application on 03.10.2008 for non-liability certificate. She received a reply on 14.11.2008 stating that appropriate action is being taken in the matter. Therefore, alleging that there is unreasonable delay in the matter, complaint has been filed. 2. The respondent before the Lok Ayukta contended that after her retirement on 30.11.2007, urgent action was taken to collect her liability certificate/non-liability certificate from the concerned officers and necessary follow up have been taken in the matter. It is stated that non liability certificate was received from the Principal Agricultural Officer, Thiruvananthapuram on 03.04.2009 and accordingly her liability certificate was issued on 25.04.2009. It is therefore submitted that there was no delay as contended. Further, she had received DCRG amount on 25.04.2009.The Lok Ayukta, after considering the matter, observed that since the pensionary claims were not settled within three months from the date of retirement, pension sanctioning authority has to be personally made responsible for the delay. 3. Reliance had been placed on Circular No. 37/96/Fin dated 12.07.1996. In the said circumstances, the Lok Ayukta felt it necessary to direct payment of interest by the Principal Agricultural Officer for the delay in providing the non liability certificate and direction had been issued to pay interest @ 9% per annum from 30.11.2007 to 25.04.2009 on the gratuity paid to her. 4. In the writ petition, the petitioner challenges the aforesaid direction inter-alia contending that the petitioner was not responsible for any delay on the part of various other officers. Further, the petitioner is not the pension sanctioning authority and proper enquiry was not conducted before arriving at the above conclusion. It is also contended that the Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to issue any such direction. Further, the petitioner is not the pension sanctioning authority and proper enquiry was not conducted before arriving at the above conclusion. It is also contended that the Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to issue any such direction. Reference is made to Section 13 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 which only directs that the Lok Ayukta has jurisdiction to pay compensation and a determination has to be made as to who should pay the said amount. It is, therefore, contended that no enquiry in that regard was conducted before issuing the impugned order. 5. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgment in University of Kerala vs. Parvathy Krishna, 2014 (2) KLT 233 , wherein this Court had occasion to consider the order by the Lok Ayukta. That was a case in which the question was whether the direction could be issued by the Lok Ayukta to revalue the answer paper of the student. It is stated that though power should be exercised under Rule 3, final orders cannot be passed in the matter. 6. As far as the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta is concerned, it has to be proved that the grievance of the complainant should be with reference to mal administration. But, the nature of orders that could be passed by the Lok Ayukta is specified under Section 12 of the Act. In terms of the said provision, once an investigation in respect of a complaint involving grievance has been made, the Lok Ayukta has to recommend to the competent authority concerned that such injustice or hardship shall remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time, as may be specified in the report. Statute does not contemplate issuing directions for payment of any interest. However, under Section 13 of the Act, a direction can be issued to pay compensation, if it is found that the complainant deserves to be compensated and in that event, determination of such compensation is required after giving that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In this case, though there was a claim for compensation, the Lok Ayukta proceeded to direct payment of interest for the delay in payment of DCRG. In this case, though there was a claim for compensation, the Lok Ayukta proceeded to direct payment of interest for the delay in payment of DCRG. In fact, the complaint was that there was delay in giving the non liability certificate, but even before the matter came up for adjudication, the non liability certificate was issued and the DCRG was collected by the complainant. 7. The respondent had a valid contention as to under what circumstances there had been delay in issuing the non liability certificate. No such matters are seen considered by the Lok Ayukta. Even assuming for the sake of argument that there is a direction to pay interest in the form of compensation unless the person who is liable to pay such interest or compensation is put to notice and he is heard in the matter, no such direction can be issued. 8. In the light of the aforesaid factual situation and the principles governing the manner in which the Lok Ayukta has to pass orders, I am of the view that the impugned order directing payment of interest is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and Ext.P9 is quashed.