JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. The prayer in the aforecaptioned Original Petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India is as follows {See page No.9 of the paper book of this O.P.(KAT)}: “......set aside Exhibit-P6 order dated 07.03.2019 in O.A.No.1695/2018 on the files of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, by allowing this Original Petition (KAT). ” 2. Heard Sri.B.Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in the O.P. / respondents 1 to 4 in the O.A. and Sri.K.A.Jaleel, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the O.P./original applicant in the O.A. before the Tribunal. 3. The prayers in Ext.P-1 O.A. No.1695/2018 filed by the respondent herein before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, are as follows: {See page Nos.32 to 34 of the paper book of this O.P.(KAT)} “(1) To call for the records leading to Order No:ACI-6627/10 dated 30.11.2015 mentioned in Annexure A14 letter dated 03.08.2018 of the 2nd respondent Director Social Justice and to set aside the Order as the department liabilities fixed by the 2nd respondent Director of Social Justice is time barred and arbitrary as no opportunity to explain was given either to the deceased employee, while in service, or to his legal heirs. (2) Issue an order or direction to the respondents for immediate closure of General Provident Fund Account of the late G.Ramesh, District Social Welfare Officer and to make necessary payment the applicant. (3) Issue an order or direction to the respondents to sanction payment of reasonable interest @ 18% to the applicant on the amount of GPF accumulation from the date of death of her husband to the date of actual payment for the culpable delay of over five years. (4) Issue an order or direction to the respondents to make immediate payment of the DCRG amount due to late G.Ramesh, District Social Welfare Officer to the legal heirs, including the applicant. (5) Issue an order or direction to the respondents to sanction payment of reasonable interest @ 18% from 06.10.2014 to the actual date of payment for the inordinate, unexplained and purposeful delay on the part of the respondents in releasing the DCRG amount. (5) Issue an order or direction to the respondents to sanction payment of reasonable interest @ 18% from 06.10.2014 to the actual date of payment for the inordinate, unexplained and purposeful delay on the part of the respondents in releasing the DCRG amount. (6) Issue an order or direction to the respondents to make immediate payment of Pay & Allowance due to the late husband of the applicant for the period from 01.02.2012 to 03.02.2013 and also to sanction payment of reasonable interest @ 18% from the date of entitlement to the actual date of payment for the unjust, unexplained and purposeful delay on the part of the respondents. (7) Issue an order or direction to the respondents to sanction payment of reasonable interest @ 18% to the applicant for the period from the date of entitlement to the date of actual payment as she was deprived of her family pension fairly for a very long period. (8) Issue an order or direction to the respondents to make immediate payment of the arrears of DA & Pay Revision benefits of 2009 due to the late husband of the applicant and also to sanction payment of reasonable interest @ 18% from for the period from the date of entitlement to the date of actual payment for the prolonged and inordinate delay. (9) Issue such other directions or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case.” 4. The applicant herein is the widow of late Sri.G.Ramesh, who had died on 04.02.2013 while in service. At that time, the applicant's husband was working as District Social Justice Officer, Ernakulam, under the Department of Social Justice, Government of Kerala. The abovesaid original petition was filed by the applicant seeking for directions to the respondents therein to sanction and disburse various terminal benefits like arrears of salary, unpaid amounts in the Provident Fund Account, DCRG, interest on Family Pension and interest on the delayed payment of various terminal benefits, etc and also seeking to quash the impugned proceedings which proposes to take action for recovery from the DCRG on account of the alleged liabilities of the deceased employee. 5. 5. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal has rendered the following directions in paras 24 to 27 of the impugned Ext.P-7 final order dated 7.3.2019 in O.A. No. 1695/2018, which read as follows: {See pages 193 to 195 of the paper book of this O.P.(KAT)} “24. With regard to the amount of DCRG, the applicant will be entitled for payment of reasonable interest for the delay. Even though, learned counsel for the applicant sought for payment of interest on arrears of salary, we are of the view that unlike the pensionary benefits the same stands on a different footing. In that view of the matter, the Original Application is allowed. We hold that the applicant is entitled to be sanctioned interest for the delayed payment of arrears of family pension, the amount remained in the GPF as well as DCRG and the interest is awarded at the rate of 6% per annum. We are of the view that a period of three months from the date of death will be reasonable which may be required for completing the various administrative formalities for sanction and disbursement of benefits and therefore, the liability to pay interest will start from 5.5.2013 onwards till the actual date of payment of arrears of family pension, GPF amount as well as the DCRG of Rs. 7 lakhs. As regards the amount of DCRG, since certain amount is due to the Government in the house building loan, after waiving the dues up to Rs. 2 lakhs, the balance amount thereon with interest accrued can be adjusted against the amount of DCRG. 25. It is submitted by the learned Senior Government Pleader steps are in progress for releasing the pay revision arrears, DA arrears and it is submitted that sanction from the Government is sought for clearing the manual bill. The said process will be completed and the said amount will be disbursed to the applicant as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The said process will be completed and the said amount will be disbursed to the applicant as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 26.There will be a direction to the respondents to release the eligible amount remaining in the Group Insurance Scheme, State LIC and Family Benefit Scheme and the entire process as regards the same will be completed and the due amounts will be released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 27. There will be a further direction to respondents 1 and 2 to sanction and release the interest awarded as above to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and as regards the interest on delayed payment of DCRG, till date of disbursement of the amount after adjusting the arrears on the House Building Loan the respondents will be liable to pay interest. The claim of the respondents to realise any liability on the part of the deceased from the estate inherited by the legal heirs is left open.” 6. For the sake of convenience, the matters in relation to the delayed payment of Provident Fund dues and delayed payment of Family Pension could be considered first. One of the main grounds urged by the respondents in the O.A.(original petitioners herein) to justify the delay was that, after the death of the employee on 04.02.2013, the applicant who is his widow had submitted the application for grant of Family Pension for the first time only as per Annexure-A3 on 06.10.2014 and that is the main ground for justifying the delay in sanctioning Family Pension benefits, etc. In that regard it is pertinent to note the provisions contained in Rule 90(13) of Part III KSR which deals with the formalities for forwarding application form for Family Pension. Clauses (iii) & (iv) of Rule 90(13) of Part III KSR read as follows: “Rule 90. The provisions in sub-rules 1 to 13 shall govern the grant of Family Pension under the Liberalised Family Pension Scheme hereinafter termed as “Contributory Family Pension”. (1) XXX XXX XXX (13) (i) XXX XXX XXX (ii) XXX XXX XXX (iii) Cases where death occurs while in service. The provisions in sub-rules 1 to 13 shall govern the grant of Family Pension under the Liberalised Family Pension Scheme hereinafter termed as “Contributory Family Pension”. (1) XXX XXX XXX (13) (i) XXX XXX XXX (ii) XXX XXX XXX (iii) Cases where death occurs while in service. -On receiving the information of death of an employee while in service, the concerned administrative authorities will send a letter in Form 6A with the application form for family pension to the family of the deceased and ask for necessary documents mentioned therein. (iv) On receiving the documents referred to in sub-para (iii) above the pension sanctioning authority will sanction family pension and send all these documents along with the Service Book of the government employee to the Accountant General, who will then issue the Pension Payment Order to the beneficiary.” 7. Hence, it can be seen that as per the statutory provisions contained in Clause (iii) of Rule 90(13) of Part III KSR, on receiving information of the death of the employee concerned while in service, the administrative authorities concerned are obliged to send a letter in Form No.6A with the application form for Family Pension to the family members of the deceased employee and request them for necessary documents mentioned therein. Further, Clause (iv) of Rule 90(13) of Part III KSR mandates that, on receipt of documents referred to in Clause (iii) of Rule 90(13) supra, the pension sanctioning authority should then sanction the Family Pension and send all those documents along with the service book of the government employee to the Accountant General, who then has to issue the Pension Payment Order to the beneficiary. 8. In the light of abovesaid statutory provisions, the Tribunal has rightly found that there was no justification whatsoever for the respondent authorities concerned to escape from their statutory liability in terms of Clauses (iii) & (iv) of Rule 90(13) of Part III KSR in having sent intimation in Form No.6A along with requisite application in the prescribed proforma for grant of Family Pension, requesting the family members of the deceased employee to take necessary action. 9. 9. From the pleadings and materials on record it appears that the applicant who is the widow of the deceased employee was rather helpless in the matter and she would have found it extremely difficult to know the intricacies of the various office formalities and merely because she had sent the formal request as per Annexure-A6 only on 06.10.2014, is no ground to say that the authorities can get immunity in fulfilling their statutory obligation in terms of Clauses (iii) & (iv) of Rule 90(13) of Part III KSR. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly found that there was failure on the part of the respondents in the O.A. in complying with the abovesaid statutory provisions and that they cannot escape from the liability of their culpable conduct in the long delay that has occurred in the grant of Family Pension. Further, the Tribunal has also noted that the General Provident Fund (GPF) portion of amount was actually released to the applicant widow only after the interim order was passed by the Tribunal on 26.09.2018, and there was gross delay of 5 long years in forwarding the application for which the applicant is legally entitled to be reasonably compensated by granting interest at the market rate. So also, the Tribunal has found that the salary arrears due to the deceased employee were actually released to the applicant widow only pursuant to the interim orders passed by the Tribunal, and therefore the applicant was held to be legally entitled for grant of reasonable interest on that account as well. 10. As regards, the delay in closure of the GPF account, the Tribunal has taken note of the statutory provision contained in Rule 39 (3) of the General Provident Fund Rules and hence, has held that the applicant is also legally entitled for being compensated for the delayed payment of the GPF accounts. In the light of these aspects, the Tribunal is fully right in taking the view in Ext.P7 final order, more particularly, in paragraph No.23 thereof that in the light of the statutory mandate contained in Rule 19(13)(iii) & (iv) of Part-III of the KSR and Rule 39(3) of the GPF Rules, it was statutorily incumbent on the respondents in the O.A to take action immediately after the death of the husband of the applicant and process the matter and sanction and disburse the due benefits. It was found that the GPF amount was actually released only after the interim order passed by the Tribunal only on 26.09.2018 and the amount was disbursed only on 17.12.2018, etc. 11. The Tribunal has also found that there was undue delay even in releasing the pay revision arrears, dearness allowance arrears due to the deceased employee and the only excuse was that sanction was awaited from the Government for such clearance. Accordingly, the Tribunal has noted in paragraph No.25 of Ext.P7 that a submission has been made by the learned Senior Government Pleader for and on behalf of the respondents in the O.A that sanction of the Government has been sought for clearance of the said amount and the process will be completed and the amounts due by way of pay revision arrears and DA arrears will be disbursed to the applicant, within one month, etc. In paragraph No.26 of Ext.P7 order, the Tribunal has also ordered that the respondents in the O.A should forthwith release the eligible amounts remaining in the Group Insurance Scheme, State LIC & Family Pension Scheme and the entire process as regard to the same should be completed and due amounts should be released within a period of three months. Accordingly, the Tribunal has ordered in paragraph No.27 of Ext.P7 that respondent Nos.1 & 2 in the O.A will sanction and release the interest awarded @6% p.a. from 05.05.2013, within three months. 12. After hearing both sides, we find that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in issuing the abovesaid directions regarding the interest on the delayed payment of the family pension, GPF accounts and other amounts mentioned hereinabove and those directions do not require any interdiction at the hands of this Court. 13. The only other remaining item is regarding the delay in disbursing the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) due to the deceased employee. 13. The only other remaining item is regarding the delay in disbursing the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) due to the deceased employee. The main ground contented by the respondents in the O.A for justifying their long delay, was that Annexure-A8 proceedings dated 15.03.2016 (see page No.48 of the paper book of this O.P) has been issued by the Director of Social Justice, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, ordering that liability to the tune of Rs.15,55,248 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Fifty Five thousand Two Hundred and Forty Eight only), is fastened as liability owed by the deceased employee to the Department of Social Justice and that a further amount of Rs.2,65,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh Sixty Five Thousand only) is due as liability from the deceased employee to the Government. Further it appears that, the total DCRG amount due to the deceased employee was only Rs.7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs only). Hence, the contention of the respondents in the O.A was that the liability owed by the deceased employee is far in excess of the total DCRG amount of Rs.7 lakhs. The respondents in the O.A have also placed reliance on Annexure-R2(a) proceedings dated 30.11.2015 (see page No.111 of the paper book of this O.P) stating that a total amount of Rs.15,55,284/-is due as liability of the deceased employee due to the Department of Social Justice. The finer details of the alleged liabilities in Annexure-R2(a) proceedings dated 30.11.2015 are mentioned in item Nos.1, 2 & 3 referred to in Annexure-R2(a), which are decisions alleged to have been taken by the department in their file on 15.10.2013, 19.11.2015 & 30.10.2014 respectively. In the instant case, the main issue to be decided in that regard, is as to whether the petitioners herein/respondents in the O.A are legally empowered to recover the abovesaid alleged liabilities covered by Annexure-A8 dated 15.03.2016 and Annexure-R2(a) dated 30.11.2015 from the DCRG amounts due to the deceased employee. It is common ground that at no point of time, disciplinary proceedings or judicial proceedings, as conceived in the main operative portion of Rule 3 of Part-III KSR was pending or instituted against the deceased employee. Hence, there is no question of placing any reliance on the main operative portion of Rule 3 or the consequential provisions contained in Rule 3A of Part-III KSR to justify the delay in disbursal of the DCRG. Hence, there is no question of placing any reliance on the main operative portion of Rule 3 or the consequential provisions contained in Rule 3A of Part-III KSR to justify the delay in disbursal of the DCRG. The only provisions that could possibly be cited by the respondents in the O.A to aid their action to recover the alleged liabilities from the DCRG of the deceased employee are those contained in Note 2 & Note 3 of Rule 3 Part-III KSR. Note 2 & Note 3 of Rule 3 Part-III KSR provide as follows : “XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Note 1.- XXX XXX XXX Note 2.-The word 'pension' used in this rule does not include death-cum-retirement gratuity. Liabilities fixed against an employee or pensioner can be recovered from the death-cum-retirement gratuity payable to him without the departmental/judicial proceedings referred to in this rule, but after giving the employee or pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity to explain. Note.3.-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 becoming pensioner. The liabilities of a pensioner should be quantified and intimated to him.” Note.2 of Rule 3 Part-III KSR makes it clear that the word 'pension' used in the operative portion of Rule 3 Part-III KSR will not include DCRG. However, it is explicitly provided therein that the liabilities that could be ascertained as against the employee or pensioner without resorting to the departmental judicial proceedings referred to in the operative portion of Rule 3, could be fixed against the employee or pensioner, as the case may be, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employee/pensioner concerned. Note.3 of Rule 3 Part-III KSR further mandates that the liabilities of an employee 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 and the liabilities of the pensioner will be quantified and intimated to him. Note.3 of Rule 3 Part-III KSR further mandates that the liabilities of an employee 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 and the liabilities of the pensioner will be quantified and intimated to him. Hence, by virtue of the explicit provisions contained in Note 2 & Note 3 of Rule 3 of Part-III KSR, those liabilities, which could be identified even without resorting to the disciplinary proceedings/judicial proceedings as conceived in the operative portion of Rule 3 Part-III KSR, could be ascertained, after due notice to the employee concerned and the entire process should be duly finalized and completed of not only quantifying with a due notice to the pensioner and also intimating to the employee/pensioner, within an outer time limit of three years on becoming a pensioner. 14. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision in the State of Kerala v. Moideen [ 1999 (1) KLT 515 (DB)] has held in para No.10 thereof, has considered the expression ‘date of becoming a pensioner’ occurring in Note 3 of Rule 3 Part-III KSR, and it has held that factum of becoming a pensioner, in the opinion of their Lordships of the Division Bench, is a constant factor viz., the date of attaining the age of superannuation, etc. In the instant case, the employee had died before attaining the retirement age. The husband of the original applicant has died on 04.02.2013. Hence, in a case where the employee has died while in service, then the outer limit of three years to be computed from the date on which the beneficiary of the deceased employee becomes entitled to claim the gratuity amounts or the pension/family pension, as the case may be. The beneficiary/legal representative will become entitled to claim the said terminal benefits of the deceased employee on the death of the employee concerned. Hence, in a case where the employee dies while in service, the outer limit of three years envisaged in Note 3 of Rule 3 Part-III KSR, should be reckoned from the date of death of the employee concerned. In the instant case, the death of the employee has occurred on 04.02.2013. Hence, the mandatory outer time limit, as envisaged Note 3 of Rule 3 Part-III KSR is only upto 03.02.2016. In the instant case, the death of the employee has occurred on 04.02.2013. Hence, the mandatory outer time limit, as envisaged Note 3 of Rule 3 Part-III KSR is only upto 03.02.2016. It is well established by a series of rulings of this Court and hence, it does not require any recitation of any judicial authority that the abovesaid procedure to identify liabilities, which can be ascertained without resort to the disciplinary proceedings or judicial proceedings, as understood in the operative portion of Rule 3 Part-III KSR, is to be effectuated, without any further delay and show cause notice will have to be issued to the employee/affected person, disclosing the basis on which the liabilities are alleged against the employee concerned and also providing the requisite materials to the employee concerned on the basis of which, the employer has tentatively arrived at the alleged liabilities and grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the affected person and then, take a considered decision, as to whether or not the alleged liabilities could be finally fastened on the employee concerned and if a decision is taken to fasten any alleged liability, the same should not only be quantified, but should also be duly intimated to the pensioner/affected person concerned, within an outer time limit of the abovesaid three years. Hence, in the instant case, the entire statutory procedures in that regard, as contemplated in Note 2 & Note 3 of Rule 3 Part-III KSR, should have been duly completed and finalized by the competent authority concerned, within an outer time limit of three years from the date of the death of the employee, i.e. on or before 03.02.2016 in this case. 15. In the instant case, the respondents in the O.A do not have any case that other than initially informing the employee about the alleged remarks made by the audit party alleging certain liabilities against him, any further action has been taken thereon. Going by the case of the respondents in the O.A, they had intimated the alleged liabilities noted by the Accountant General/audit party. The applicant being the widow of the deceased employee may not be in a position to know the correctness or otherwise of any of these factual aspects. Going by the case of the respondents in the O.A, they had intimated the alleged liabilities noted by the Accountant General/audit party. The applicant being the widow of the deceased employee may not be in a position to know the correctness or otherwise of any of these factual aspects. Even if it is assumed that the case of the respondents in the O.A that audit objections of the Accountant General were formally intimated to the employee while he was in service and that he had not responded to give any reply thereto, the respondents in the O.A do not have any case that thereafter, they have given the requisite materials on the basis of which, the adverse alleged liabilities are alleged against the employee and that thereafter, they have granted reasonable opportunity of being heard to the party concerned and have not only quantified the alleged liability, but have also duly intimated the same to the party concerned. The respondents in the O.A do not have any case that the abovesaid procedure has been completed at least with due notice to the widow of the deceased employee, within the said outer time limit of three years, which has expired on 03.02.2016. 16. A reading of Annexure-R2(a) proceedings dated 30.11.2015 and Annexure-A8 proceedings dated 15.03.2016 would show that other than raising unilateral allegations by the authorities concerned about the alleged liabilities of the deceased employee, there is no reference therein that the abovesaid statutory obligation of complying with the elementary principles of fairness and natural justice, as stated above have been strictly complied with in the instant case. It is also clear from the reading of Annexure-A8 proceedings dated 15.03.2016 that the widow of the employee has been intimated for the first time only through the issuance of Annexure-A8 letter dated 15.03.2016, which is only after the expiry of the three year outer time limit, which was only upto 03.02.2016. Three items are referred to as references in Annexure-R2(a) proceedings dated 30.11.2015. The said referred papers are said to be decisions taken on file by the authority concerned on 15.10.2013, 19.11.2015 & 30.10.2014 about the alleged liabilities of the deceased employee. Three items are referred to as references in Annexure-R2(a) proceedings dated 30.11.2015. The said referred papers are said to be decisions taken on file by the authority concerned on 15.10.2013, 19.11.2015 & 30.10.2014 about the alleged liabilities of the deceased employee. The said aspects mentioned in Annexure-R2(a) would also show that those decisions are only decisions taken on file and respondents in the O.A do not have any case that the said decisions were duly in compliance with the abovesaid fair procedure and that the alleged liabilities are not only quantified, but also duly intimated either to the deceased employee, while he was in service or at least the widow of the deceased employee on or before the expiry of the abovesaid three year outer time limit. Hence, certain submissions were also made before the Tribunal by the respondents in the O.A, on the basis of Annexures-R2 (e) to R2(g) documents. The said document would not in any manner even remotely show that the abovesaid fair statutory procedural formalities have been complied with in the instant case, either as against the employee while he was in service or at least vis-a-vis the widow of the employee, within the outer time limit of three years. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the abovesaid alleged liabilities have been unilaterally made and without following the due procedure and cannot be legally fastened, so as to recover the same from the DCRG of the deceased employee concerned. 17. From a reading of the pleadings and materials on record as well as the impugned Ext.P7 order, it can be seen that the liability to the tune of Rs.2,65,000/-has also been alleged by way of balance dues in a housing loan and the Tribunal has noted that as per the applicable norms, an amount to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) could be written off in the case of the death of the employee concerned. Hence, the Tribunal has held in favour of the applicant in the O.A that as regards the said alleged liability of Rs.2,65,000/-, the respondents in the O.A may after writing off the abovesaid amount of Rs.2 lakhs, may recover the said balance amount of Rs.65,000/-from the DCRG amount due to the applicant. That direction issued in favour of the respondent-original applicant has not been challenged by the petitioners herein. 18. That direction issued in favour of the respondent-original applicant has not been challenged by the petitioners herein. 18. It is in the light of these aspects, that the Tribunal has also issued direction as per Ext.P7 that the total admissible DCRG amount, after deducting the said amount of Rs.65,000/-is to be immediately paid to the applicant, who is the widow of the deceased employee and that the said amount will carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. for the period from 05.05.2013 till the date of actual payment. 19. After hearing both sides, we are of the considered view that the abovesaid findings and orders made by the Tribunal as regards the payment of the due gratuity amount, along with the interest thereon also will not call for any interdiction at the hands of this Court and the Tribunal has rightly held that none of the alleged liabilities can be recovered from the DCRG amount due to the applicant in the O.P, except the abovesaid amount of Rs.65,000/-. The upshot of the above, discussion is that no proper grounds have been made out by the petitioners, so as to warrant interference by recourse to the extraordinary discretionary and constitutional powers conferred in terms of Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of this case. However, we note that directions given by the Tribunal as per the impugned Ext.P7 final order were rendered as early as on 07.03.2019. We note that the applicant’s husband has died on 04.02.2013 and the impugned directions have been given by the Tribunal as per Ext.P7 as early as on 07.03.2019. The present O.P has been filed before this Court on 22.10.2020. 20. In the light of these aspects, it is ordered that the petitioners will immediately comply with the directions rendered by the Tribunal at Ext.P7, without any further delay, at any rate within an outer time limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The learned counsel for the original applicant may ensure that copies of this judgment are forwarded to the competent authorities concerned, for necessary information and for immediate compliance. With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition will stand dismissed.