(1.) The State and the respondents in T.A. No. 33 of 2016 are before us challenging an order dated 1.8.2017 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram ('KAT' for short). As per the impugned order evidenced herein by Annexure A4, the application filed by the respondent has been allowed and a direction has been issued to the second and third petitioners to release the Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) of the respondent within three months of the date of receipt of a copy of the order. They have also been directed to pay interest at 5% per annum from 1.7.1989 till the date of payment.
(2.) The respondent retired from service as Deputy Director of Education on 31.3.1989. He approached the KAT aggrieved by the refusal to release his DCRG. His DCRG was retained alleging that there were liabilities against him. He contended that no liability had been fixed against him as required under Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR). In view of the above, according to him, non-payment of his gratuity was without any justification. According to him, Ext.P2 notice dated 25.6.1992 had been issued to him asking him to furnish the reasons why an mount of Rs.97,260.85 should not be released from him. Ext.P2 notice, according to the respondent, was beyond the time limit stipulated by Rule 3, Part III KSR.
(3.) The contentions of the respondent were refuted by the petitioners. According to them, as per the proceedings dated 25.1.1991 of the third petitioner, the liability of the respondent had been fixed and intimated to him. It is also stated that the respondent had submitted his objections. However, the explanation of the respondent was that the order dated 25.1.1991 was without notice to him and that on receipt thereof, he had objected to the same.