JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. 1. The State of Kerala and four others have instituted this original petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers (See Page No. 13 of the paper-book of this original petition): “1. To set aside the Exhibit P3 Order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 2210/2018. 2. To dismiss the Exhibit P1 Original Application No. 2210/2018 filed by the Petitioner before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, holding that the Petitioner is not eligible for any of the reliefs claimed in the Exhibit P1 Original Application. 3. Any other order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri. B. Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners (State of Kerala and Others)/respondents 1 to 5 in the OA before the Tribunal and Sri. Rajesh P. Nair, learned Advocate appearing for the sole respondent in the OP/original applicant before the Tribunal. 3. The applicant's husband, Sri. Saseendra Babu had retired from service as Associate Professor in Botany from the University College, Thiruvananthapuram (which is a Government owned College) on 31.03.2012. The said pensioner had later died on 10.04.2017. The complaint of the original applicant, who is the widow of the deceased pensioner, is that so far the DCRG due to the pensioner has not been paid, in spite of the expiry of the outer time limit of three years as envisaged in Note 3 appended to Rule 3 of Part III KSR. The deceased husband of the original applicant will be referred to hereinafter for convenience as the teacher. 4. While the teacher concerned was working as Selection Grade Lecturer in Botany in the University College, Thiruvananthapuram, he was selected for deputation to undergo Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) under the Fellowship Improvement Programme (FIP) of the UGC (University Grants Commission) for the period from 2.11.2004 to 2.11.2006. Consequent thereto, he was relieved from the Universality College, Thiruvananthapuram with effect from 2.11.2004 A.N. in order to join the FIP Programme as can be seen from Annexure A1 relieving order dated 2.11.2004. It is also common ground that the competent authority of the State Government in the Higher Education Department had also sanctioned his deputation as per Annexure A2 G.O. (Rt) No. 285/2005/H.Edn. dated 21.2.2005. It is also common ground that the competent authority of the State Government in the Higher Education Department had also sanctioned his deputation as per Annexure A2 G.O. (Rt) No. 285/2005/H.Edn. dated 21.2.2005. It appears that no substitute Lecturer/teacher was appointed in his vacancy consequent to his deputation to undergo the Ph.D. as per the FIP Programme. The teacher concerned had earlier executed a bond in terms of Annexure A3 dated 28.2.2005. It is the case of the original applicant that her deceased husband had fulfilled all the conditions for submitting the thesis, but he failed to submit the same in time, for reasons beyond his control and as such he could not secure the Ph.D. Degree within the stipulated time. Later, a further period of five months was also granted to him under the FIP programme for the period from 2.11.2006 to 31.3.2007 for which Annexure A4 supplemental agreement dated 2.2.2007 was also executed by him. It is also beyond any dispute that the teacher concerned had formally joined duty in the College concerned after the completion of the FIP Programme, but he could not secure Ph.D. Degree. It is later that the teacher had retired from service as Associate Professor in Botany from the University College, Thiruvananthapuram on 31.03.2012. After retirement, he was sanctioned various retiral benefits and DCRG amount of Rs. 7 lakhs was sanctioned to him as per Annexure A5 dated 15.10.2012. However, the said amount of DCRG sanctioned to him as per Annexure A5 has not been released so far. In that regard, it may also noteworthy to mention that just prior to the completion of the deputation period, the teacher had requested to join in his parent institution and he was re-appointed in the University College, Thiruvananthapuram with effect from 01.04.2007 as evident from Annexure A6 dated 27.03.2007. Annexure A7 dated 31.03.2007 is the order passed by the Principal of the College wherein he had undertaken the FIP Programme. Hence there is no dispute that pursuant to Annexure A7 and A8, the teacher concerned had joined duty in the parent College concerned on 1.4.2007 F.N. 5. As mentioned hereinabove, the teacher concerned had died on 10.04.2017. Annexure A7 dated 31.03.2007 is the order passed by the Principal of the College wherein he had undertaken the FIP Programme. Hence there is no dispute that pursuant to Annexure A7 and A8, the teacher concerned had joined duty in the parent College concerned on 1.4.2007 F.N. 5. As mentioned hereinabove, the teacher concerned had died on 10.04.2017. It is thereafter that the impugned Annexure A9 proceedings dated 15.10.2018 was issued by the Director of Collegiate Education and the consequential impugned Annexure A10 proceedings dated 26.10.2018 was also issued by the Principal of University College, Thiruvananthapuram, directing the original applicant (who is the widow of the deceased pensioner) that she is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 8,80,335/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum plus Rs. 20,000/- which are the liabilities towards salary and allowances received by the teacher concerned during the period of deputation under the FIP Programme as well as the contingency grant received by him, purportedly on the ground that he has not successfully obtained Ph.D. Degree, after completion of the FIP Programme. A perusal of Annexure A9 proceedings dated 15.10.2018 would show that it is an inter se communication between the Director of Collegiate Education and Principal of the University College, Thiruvananthapuram and a copy of the same is marked to the original applicant. Further, it appears that after receipt of Annexure A9, the Principal of the University College has issued the impugned Annexure A10 letter dated 26.10.2018 to the original applicant. It is common ground, it is not in dispute that none of the authorities concerned afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard either to the deceased pensioner/teacher or his widow, the original applicant, before the issuance of the impugned proceedings at Annexure A9 dated 15.10.2018 and Annexure A10 letter dated 26.10.2018. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, had passed the impugned Ext.P3 final order dated 06.08.2019 allowing the main pleas in O.A. No. 2210/2018 on the ground that the bond conditions at Annexure A3 and A4 do not permit recovery of amount on the ground that the candidate concerned had not successfully obtained Ph.D Degree after completion of the FIP Programme and that the clauses in those bond/agreement would only entail payment of an amount of Rs. 7,000/- as penalty only if the incumbent concerned does not complete the course. 7,000/- as penalty only if the incumbent concerned does not complete the course. Hence, it has been held by the Tribunal that the impugned proceedings for recovery at Annexure A9 and A10 are liable to be interfered with. Further, the Tribunal has also taken a view that the amounts covered by Annexure A9 and A10 would at least be treated as alleged liabilities and if the same is to be recovered from the DCRG of the pensioner, then at best it could have been treated as a liability fixation process envisaged in terms of Notes 2 and 3 of Rule 3 Part III KSR, in which case, the entire process of issuing show cause notice to the pensioner/incumbent concerned after affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard should have been done and thereafter the liability fixation process should have been duly completed, within an outer time limit of three years from the date of retirement of the pensioner, in view of the mandatory conditions in Notes 2 and 3 of Rule 3 Part III KSR. In the instant case, the alleged liability fixation process has not been completed by issuance of show cause notice and hearing the teacher concerned/pensioner concerned within a period of three years from the date of retirement and hence the impugned proceedings for recovery from the DCRG amount is illegal and ultra-vires. 6. We have heard both sides and one of the contentions urged by the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners is that the reliance placed by the Tribunal in the impugned Ext.P3 order on the judgment dated 25.8.2014 of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 884 of 2013 is not tenable or correct and that the State authorities are entitled to succeed in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case in Sant Longowal Institute of Engg. and Technology vs. Suresh Chandra Verma, (2013) 10 SCC 411 . 7. The main issue to be decided in this case is as to whether the impugned Annexure A9 and A10 proceedings ordering to recover the amounts covered therein from the DCRG of the deceased pensioner is legally tenable or not. It is common ground that in the instant case the teacher concerned had retired from service as early as on 31.03.2012 and later the teacher concerned had died on 10.4.2017. It is common ground that in the instant case the teacher concerned had retired from service as early as on 31.03.2012 and later the teacher concerned had died on 10.4.2017. In the instant case, the State authorities concerned do not have any case that the proceedings as envisaged in the operative portion of Rule 3 Part III KSR had been taken in the instant case at any point of time. Notes 2 and 3 appended under Rule 3 Part III KSR read as follows: “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.” 8. It is by now well established that even without resort to the proceedings envisaged in the operative portion of Rule 3, the departmental authorities concerned can take steps to ascertain liabilities of the employee/pensioner concerned, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the pensioner and this aspect of the matter is clear from Note 2 appended to Rule 3 Part III KSR. However, in such cases covered by Note 2 Rule 3 Part III KSR, the statutory rule making authority has made a mandatory provision as per Note 3 thereof that in such cases liability should have been duly and lawfully finalised within an outer time limit of three years on the incumbent concerned become a pensioner. In the instant case, the statutory time limit of three years as envisaged in the mandatory provision contained in Note 3 of Rule 3 Part III KSR has expired as early as on 31.03.2015. It is thereafter that the pensioner/teacher concerned had died on 10.04.2017. In the instant case, the statutory time limit of three years as envisaged in the mandatory provision contained in Note 3 of Rule 3 Part III KSR has expired as early as on 31.03.2015. It is thereafter that the pensioner/teacher concerned had died on 10.04.2017. At no point of time either within the outer time limit of three years or at any time before the issuance of the impugned Annexure A9 proceedings dated 15.10.2018 and Annexure A10 proceedings dated 26.10.2018, the State/departmental authorities concerned has issued any show cause notice to the teacher concerned for taking steps to ascertain the liability fixation process and then to pass an order fixing the liability within the outer time limit as mandated in Notes 2 and 3 of Rule 3 Part III KSR. Hence, on this simple ground the petitioners are not legally entitled to recover the said amount covered by Annexure A9 and A10 from the DCRG from the deceased pensioner concerned. On this sole ground, the original applicant is entitled to succeed and the Tribunal cannot be faulted in any manner for having arrived at the said finding. 9. However, we would also examine some of the other contentions raised by both sides. The bond conditions are contained in Page No. 2 of Annexure A3 agreement dated 28.02.2005 and on Page No. 2 of Annexure A4 supplemental agreement dated 02.02.2007 executed by the deceased teacher. The relevant conditions given on page 2 of Annexure A3 original agreement dated 28.2.2005 are as follows; (See Pages 39 to 40 of this paper-book): “Whereas the government have agreed to pay the bounden during the period of said deputation his full pay and allowances subject to the terms and conditions contained in the said order and these hereinafter appearing to which the bounden has also agreed. And whereas for the better protection of the government the bounden has agreed to execute this bond with such conditions as hereunder written. And whereas for the better protection of the government the bounden has agreed to execute this bond with such conditions as hereunder written. “Now the condition of the above written obligation is that in the event of the bounden failing to serve government for a period of three years immediately and continuously after his return to duty on completion of the course, the bounden shall forthwith pay to the government on demand the amount mentioned above together with interest thereon from the date of demand at government rates for the time being in force on government loans and in case the bounden fails to complete the course successfully within the grace period, the bounden and sureties shall pay to the government a penalty of Rs. 7000/- (seven thousand only) together with interest thereon at the rate mentioned above unless the bounden successfully completes the course at his own expense within two years from the date of expiry the period of the deputation and upon payment of all such sums the above written obligation shall be void and of no effect otherwise this shall be and remain in full force and effect: Provided further that the bounden here by aggress that all sums found due to government under or by virtue of this bond shall be recoverable from the bounden and his properties both movable and immovable under the provision of the revenue recovery act for the time being in force as though such sums are arrears of land revenue and in such other manner as the government may deem fit.” 10. It may also be pertinent to refer to the relevant conditions in Annexure A4 supplemental agreement dated 02.02.2007, which reads as follows: (see the latter portion of internal page 2 of Annexure A4 order at page 42 of this paper-book): “That in the principal Deed after the first recital beginning with the words Government have in G.O. (Rt.) No. 285/2005/H.Edn. dated 21.2.2005 and ending with the words “University of Kerala” the following shall be substituted as second recital. WHEREAS the Government have in G.O. (Rt.) No. 129/2007/H.Edn. dated 23.1.2007 (which shall form part of this Deed as if incorporated herein) extended the period of deputation of the Bounden from 2.11.2006 to 31.3.2007 for the purpose of completion of Ph.D Course under faculty improvement programme of University Grants Commission in the University of Kerala. 2. WHEREAS the Government have in G.O. (Rt.) No. 129/2007/H.Edn. dated 23.1.2007 (which shall form part of this Deed as if incorporated herein) extended the period of deputation of the Bounden from 2.11.2006 to 31.3.2007 for the purpose of completion of Ph.D Course under faculty improvement programme of University Grants Commission in the University of Kerala. 2. Modified as aforesaid the principal Deed shall be and remain fully binding on the parties and of full force and effect.” 11. A perusal of Annexure A3 and A4 would make it clear that in the event of the FIP Teacher failing to serve the Government for a period of three years immediately and continuously after his return to duty on completion of the course, he/she shall forthwith pay to the Government on demand, the amount mentioned above together with interest from the date of demand at Government rates for the time being, in terms of the Government norms and further in case the teacher on FIP fails to complete the course successfully within the grace period, the bounden and the surety shall pay to the Government a penalty of Rs.7000 together with interest thereon at the rates mentioned above, unless the bounden successfully completes the course at his own expense within two years from the date of expiry of the period of deputation, etc. The additional condition given in Annexure A4 supplemental agreement only stipulates that the above said conditions in Annexure A3 would govern the extended period of the FIP programme. The very same bond condition has been the subject matter of consideration of this Court in the case in Kumari Geetha S. vs. State of Kerala and Others as per judgment dated 25.08.2014 in W.P. (C) No. 884 of 2013. It may be pertinent to refer to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 884 of 2013, which read as follows: “7. It may be pertinent to refer to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 884 of 2013, which read as follows: “7. It is profitable to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P3, which reads as follows: “NOW THE ABOVE WRITTEN OBLIGATIONS IS THAT in the event of the Bounden failing to serve the Christian College, Kattakada for period of 3 years immediately and continuously after his return to duty on completion of his course the Bounden and Sureties shall forthwith pay to the Government on demand the amounts referred to above together with interest thereon at Government rates for the time being in force on Government loans and in case the Bounden fails to complete the course successfully within the grace period the Bounden and sureties shall pay to the Government a penalty of Rs. 7,000/- (Seven Thousand Only) together with interest at the rates mentioned above unless the Bounden successfully completes the course at his own expense within two years from the date of expiry of the period of deputation and upon payment of all such sums the above written obligation shall be void and of no effect otherwise this shall be and remain in full force and effect.” 8. What could be discerned from above is that the pay and other allowances given to the petitioner could be recovered by the Government only if the petitioner fails to join duty within a period of 3 years from completion of the course. The respondents have no case that the petitioner has rejoined duty within the aforesaid period. However, if the petitioner fails to complete the course successfully within the grace period, it shall be duty of the petitioner to pay a sum of 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) together with interest at the rates specified therein. The respondents can quantify the liability only in tune with the agreed terms in Ext.P3, and the 2nd respondent cannot go beyond the agreed terms in the bond. Therefore, steps taken by the petitioner to recover salary and other allowances owned by the petitioner during the deputation period from the DCRG is unauthorised and illegal. The same cannot be deducted from the DCRG.” 12. Therefore, steps taken by the petitioner to recover salary and other allowances owned by the petitioner during the deputation period from the DCRG is unauthorised and illegal. The same cannot be deducted from the DCRG.” 12. A perusal of the above said judgment would make it clear that relevant condition in the bond executed by the teacher concerned in the said case in W.P. (C) No. 884 of 2013 is similar and identical to that as made out in Annexure A3 and A4 in the instant case. Hence this Court, after hearing both sides, is in respectful agreement with the views already rendered by this Court in the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 884 of 2013. In the instant case, it is common ground that the teacher concerned after completion of the FIP Programme had returned back to the parent College and rejoined duty and had continued in service for three years. Therefore, the first limb of the relevant condition of Annexure A3 will not come into play for the simple reason that the said clause will arise only if the incumbent/teacher concerned does not join duty after completing the FIP Programme and so for a period of three years thereafter. Hence at best only the second limb of Annexure A3 for payment of the penalty amount of Rs. 7,000/- for not successfully obtaining the Ph.D Degree alone will come into play in the instant case. The learned Senior Government Pleader has made reference to Annexure R2(c) appendix of the above said agreements, which are stated to be in more general terms. Even going by the stand of the Department, Annexure R2(c) is only an appendix to Annexure A3 and A4 documents and there cannot be any doubt that the main agreements are those contained in Annexure A3 and A4. The penalty amount envisaged in the appendix is Rs. 10,000/- which is reduced to Rs. 7000/- in Annexure A3 and A4. The exact factual contingencies which justify the recovery of the full pay and allowances are explicitly and precisely enumerated in Annexure A3 and therefore the said clause in Annexure A3 as reiterated subsequently in Annexure A4 alone will govern the field. 10,000/- which is reduced to Rs. 7000/- in Annexure A3 and A4. The exact factual contingencies which justify the recovery of the full pay and allowances are explicitly and precisely enumerated in Annexure A3 and therefore the said clause in Annexure A3 as reiterated subsequently in Annexure A4 alone will govern the field. Hence this Court does not find any cogent grounds to deviate from the well considered view rendered by this Court in the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 884 of 2013 and the Tribunal cannot be faulted for placing reliance on the said judgment of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 884 of 2013. 13. In that regard the contention of the original applicant based on clause 8.3 of Annexure R2(a) norms issued by the UGC would also assume importance and relevance inasmuch as clause 8.3 specifically envisages that if a Teacher Fellow fails to complete his/her Ph.D/M.Phil. Programme and leaves it midway, he/she has to refund the entire amount paid to him by the UGC during his/her Teacher Fellowship. 14. The learned Senior Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case in Sant Longowal Institute's case (supra). A reading of the judgment in Sant Longowal Institute's case (supra) would make it clear that the teacher incumbent concerned was granted three years study leave for the period from 24.7.1999 to 22.7.2002 and he had joined back has Lecturer in November 2003 (see paragraph 2 thereof). The bond executed by the said teacher is extracted in paragraph 7 of the said judgment and it was found that the said bond conditions are quite vague and does not envisage a case of recovery from the full pay and allowances paid to the teacher concerned, if he does not subsequently secure the Ph.D. Degree. However, a reading of paragraph 9 of the said decision would make it clear that later the institute had amended its norms for bond conditions on 28.6.2002, which appears to be before the expiry of the leave period of the teacher concerned (which was upto 22.7.2002). Moreover, a reading of paragraph 10 of the said judgment would also make it clear that the explicit statutory rules had governed the field and reference to Rule 63 of the Rules are contained therein. Moreover, a reading of paragraph 10 of the said judgment would also make it clear that the explicit statutory rules had governed the field and reference to Rule 63 of the Rules are contained therein. Rule 63 of the said Rule considered in paragraph 10 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sant Longowal Institute's case (supra) would make it clear that explicit provisions are provided in the said Rule for dealing with contingency in question. The Apex Court after considering the facts of the case found that though the bond conditions are vague, the partial refund already effected from the salary of the teacher incumbent concerned may not be interfered with and had also specifically ordered that further balance amount yet to be recovered from the teacher need not be recovered, taking into consideration the facts circumstances of the case. In the instant case, the parties are fully regulated by the conditions in Annexure A3 and A4 agreements. 15. Further, there are no provisions akin to Rule 63 of the Rules considered in paragraph No. 9 of the Sant Longowal Institute's case (supra), in the present case. Rule 99 of Part I KSR deals with study leave. The said Rule 99 of Part I KSR has been deleted from the statute book with effect from 19.02.2007 as per Gazette notification published on 22.2.2007. The omitted Rule 99 of Part I KSR and the note thereunder read as follows: “Rule 99 - Leave may be granted to officers on such terms as the Government may by general order prescribe to enable them to study scientific, technical or similar problems or to undergo special courses of instructions. The detailed rules framed under this rule are given in Appendix-VI. Note - For rule regarding the grant of leave without allowance for study purposes in the case of officers not in permanent employ, See Rule 91.” 16. The detailed norms and rules framed under Rule 99 are given in Appendix VI of Part I KSR. Appendix VI deals with rules for grant of study leave of person concerned. The said Appendix VI contains altogether 21 Rules as well as Annexure A and A1 thereto. The detailed norms and rules framed under Rule 99 are given in Appendix VI of Part I KSR. Appendix VI deals with rules for grant of study leave of person concerned. The said Appendix VI contains altogether 21 Rules as well as Annexure A and A1 thereto. A reading of Rule 1(3) of the norms in Appendix VI would make it clear that study leave shall not be granted unless (i) the proposed course of study or training shall be of definite advantage from the point of view of public interest (ii) it is for prosecution studies in subjects other than academic or literary subjects and......Hence it can be seen that Rule 1(3)(ii) of Appendix VI framed under Rule 99 specifically mandates that the said study leaves covered by Rule 99 would come into play only if it is for prosecution of studies in subjects other than academic or literary subjects. In other words, it appears that if the course is meant for Ph.D. or M.Phil. in academic or literary subjects, then there is no question of invoking Rule 99 or Appendix VI framed thereto. Further, Rule 9 of Appendix VI would make it clear that the Government servant would refund the amount, only if any over payment is made by the Government consequent to the failure of the employer concerned to produce the required certificate of attendance from the institution concerned. Rule 15 thereof deals with execution of bond in terms of Annexure A and A1 attached to Appendix 6. Further, a reading of the operative portion of Annexure A proforma agreement framed under the above said Rule 15 would make it clear that the liability to pay the amounts to the Government would occur only in cases where the employee concerned resigns or retire from service without returning to duty after expiry of the termination of the period of study leave. The operative portion of Annexure A1 agreement is also on the same lines. Rule 17 framed under Rule 99 of Part I KSR further mandates that during study leave a Government servant shall draw leave salary equal to the amount admissible during half pay leave under Rule 93 Part I KSR. The operative portion of Annexure A1 agreement is also on the same lines. Rule 17 framed under Rule 99 of Part I KSR further mandates that during study leave a Government servant shall draw leave salary equal to the amount admissible during half pay leave under Rule 93 Part I KSR. Going by the above said provisions, it is broadly clear that the above said Rules contained in Rule 99 and Appendix VI framed thereunder, may not have any application where the prosecution of studies is meant to acquire a Ph.D. or M.Phil degree in academic or literary subjects. That apart Rule 99 has been deleted from the Statute Book with effect from 19.2.2007. Hence it can be seen that the factual situation prevailing in the present case is substantially different from the case considered in Sant Longowal Institute's case (supra). Moreover, even the Apex Court has given certain equitable directions taking into consideration the peculiar facts circumstances of the case dealt with hereinabove by ordering that whatever has been recovered from the employee need not be refunded to him and that amounts which are not by then recovered from the teacher was ordered not to be recovered. In the light of these aspects, this Court is of the considered view that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sant Longowal Institute's case (supra) may not have any application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. In the light of these aspects, we are constrained to take the view that the contentions of the petitioners herein (respondents in the OA) are not tenable or sustainable. The Tribunal cannot be faulted for having taken the view as in the impugned final order at Ext.P3. However, we order that the time limit stipulated for compliance with the directions in the impugned Ext.P3 final order dated 6.8.2019 in O.A. No. 2210/2018 rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal Thiruvananthapuram Bench will stand extended by a further period of two months as last chance. Taking into consideration the fact that the original applicant is a widow of the deceased pensioner who is waiting for the due DCRG amounts for a very long time, we would expect that the petitioners would ensure that steps would be immediately taken the release the DCRG amounts due to her without any further delay. 18. Taking into consideration the fact that the original applicant is a widow of the deceased pensioner who is waiting for the due DCRG amounts for a very long time, we would expect that the petitioners would ensure that steps would be immediately taken the release the DCRG amounts due to her without any further delay. 18. With these observations and directions, the above original petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.