The question that is posed for consideration in this writ petition is one which seems to arise in several cases, in slightly varying forms. Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (for short "DCRG") is the retirement benefit that a Government servant is entitled to, as part of his right, for the services rendered by him. In an ideal situation a Government servant would probably receive the DCRG due and admissible to him within a month of his retirement. Again, in an ideal situation, the Government servant would start receiving his pension in the month following his retirement. But, obviously there are plethora of instances where it would not be possible, either to disburse the DCRG due and admissible to the Government servant immediately following the retirement, or pay the pension, with effect from the month following retirement. The statutory rules framed under the Public Services Act govern the right to receive pension and gratuity. They also provide for a time frame, within which, the liability of a Government servant, arising in relation to the period during which he had rendered service, would be determined in such a manner that losses, if any, caused to the Government by reason of the action or inaction on the part of the Government servant, could be recovered from the retirement benefits due to the Government servant. At the same time, such rules recognize the right of the Government to recompense itself against any pecuniary loss suffered by it due to any action or inaction on the part of the Government servant, as a measure of damages, by recourse to the general remedy available before a Civil Court, like any other legal person, who has suffered damage on account of the breach committed by another.

2. This court has considered different facets of this question on different occasions. Law has been laid down in this regard by Benches on different occasions. On a conspectus of the decisions rendered by this court on various occasions, it was felt that one aspect arising out of a possible literal interpretation of Rule 3A (a) of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), has not been the subject-matter of a decision of this court. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. V.K. Sunil and Mr. Nandakumar, learned Senior Government Pleader made elaborate submissions on this aspect. Mr. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillai was requested to assist the court. Counsel made reference to most of the major decisions taken by this court on the broad aspect of how far is it open to the Government to treat the pendency of judicial proceedings as a factor to refrain from disbursing the DCRG due and admissible in favour of a Government Servant.

3. The petitioner retired from service as an Upper Division Clerk in the Registration Department on 30-11-2003. An amount of Rs.1,62,180 has been found to be due and admissible to the petitioner by way of DCRG. In spite of the fact that the amount has been sanctioned by the Accountant General on 24-12-2004, it has not been disbursed to the petitioner, so far. This is on account of the fact that there is a criminal prosecution against the petitioner as C.C.No.42/04, pending before the Special Judge, Thrissur. The petitioner contends that more than 4 years have elapsed since his retirement on 30-11-2003. Therefore, the State is not entitled to withhold the DCRG due to him under any count. The representations filed by him in this regard, as Exts.P-6 and P-7 dated 7-4-2007, have not been heeded to and hence the writ petition seeking a direction to release the DCRG due to the petitioner. Specific reference in this regard is made to Note 2 to Rule 3 of Part III of the Rules, which prescribes a maximum period of 3 years for withholding of the DCRG even in cases where the Government servant is liable to pay any amount to the Government; and such liability is sought to be adjusted against DCRG due to him. No such liability has been determined in relation to the