P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

1. The correctness and sustainability of Exhibit P2 order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.24/2015 preferred by the respondent herein, directing to pay 'interest' on the allegedly delayed payment of DCRG is the subject matter of challenge, at the instance of the Government.

2. Heard Sri. T.Rajasekharan Nair, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court, the following interim order was passed:

"The learned Senior Government Pleader is required to produce a copy of the G.O. (MS) No.167/2001/G.Edn dated 11.05.01 (which has been referred to both in Annexure A5 as well as Annexure A6). The learned Senior Government Pleader is also required to explain, after getting instructions, as to the circumstances under which Annexure A6 had to be passed by the Government, if the issue has already dealt with and covered by the earlier G.O. dated 11.05.01. Post next week."

4. Pursuant to the said order, an additional statement has been filed by the Government Pleader, also producing a copy of the G.O. (MS) No.167/2001/G.Edn dated 11.05.01. The factual position has been sought to be explained in the said statement as well, with reference to the relevant Rule, i.e. Rule 7(3) of Chapter VIII of KER and the sequence of events.

5. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit, producing a copy of the very same G.O. as Exhibit R1(a) and contends that, in view of the said G.O. issued way back in the year 2001, there was absolutely no reason for the Accountant General to have raised any audit objection. For the very same reason, it was not necessary for the Government to have issued the G.O. dated 20.08.2014 (Annexure A6 in the O.A.). As such, there is culpable delay on the part of the Department in issuing the 'NLC' (No Liability Certificate) and in turn disbursing the DCRG. This has been rightly remedied by the Tribunal by passing Exhibit P2 order, which, according to the respondent, is not assailable under any circumstance.

6. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the respondent was working as a Senior Superintendent in the Office of the Assistant Educational Officer, Chittarikkal, Kasargod District and on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from the service on 31.03.2013. The DCRG was sanctioned by the competent authority as per Annexure A1 dated 01.10.2013, but the 'NLC' was not issued referring to 'audit objection' raised by the fifth respondent. As a natural consequence, the DCRG was not disbursed, which made the respondent to approach the Tribunal by filing the O.A, as mentioned above.

7. The circumstances were sought to be explained by the State/Department by filing a reply statement, also producing copies of the relevant materials including Annexure A6 G.O. dated 20.08.2014, whereby the Government had come to the rescue of persons like the applicant, to facilitate payment of salary and such other benefits, despite the rule position as to the Teacher/Student ratio required to be maintained with reference to the effective minimum strength for linguistic minority Schools. But, without making any specific reference to the contents of the said G.Os and the proceedings, an observation was made by the Tribunal that there was no valid ground for withholding the DCRG, in turn directing to pay interest on the due amount, to the extent as ordered therein. We have gone through the verdict; which is too brief and there is no discussion on the facts and events. Altogether, it contains just 16 sentences' distributed in 'three' paragraphs. In the said circumstance, it has become necessary to examine the factual aspects involved.

8. By virtue of Rule 7(3) of Chapter VIII KER, the minimum Teacher strength was required to be 10', with reference to the number of students and this was to be maintained in the Schools to have them treated as 'econom