The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in disbursing gratuity due to the non-issuance of a non-liability certificate must be justified by the existence of outstanding liabilities that the retired employee has to satisfy. The judgment also clarifies the procedures and consequences related to the disbursement of Death Cum Retirement Gratuity (D.C.R.G.) and the issuance of non-liability certificates under Ruling 1 to R.116.

B.M. Thulasidas, J.

1. The petitioner took charge as District Medical Officer (Health) Kanhangad on 26-12-1991 and went on leave preparatory to retirement for 50 days. He rejoined duty on 20-3-1992 and retired on 31-3-1992. He was therefore on duty only for 11 days in the month of March, 1992. The Accountant General sanctioned him an amount of Rs. 28,075/- as gratuity to be disbursed to him on production of N.L.C. which the respondents 2 and 3 should have issued within two months of his retirement. But then he did not get the amount. He made a representation, copy of which is Ext. P1, on 22-7-1992. He sent reminders on 18-11-1992 and 15-11-1993. Later he got a copy of the letter from the third respondent addressed to the second respondent that internal audit is due from 1-3-1992 onwards and by reason of that the N.L.C. could not be issued to him. He also requested the second respondent to expedite the audit. But then nothing was done. Later he sent a letter to the second respondent, copy of which is Ext. P3, on receipt of which the second respondent sent a letter to the third respondent, copy of which is Ext. P4, requesting to forward the N.L.C. This was indeed an 'eye wash' because it was after receiving the communication dt. 4-3-1993, the third respondent sent Ext. P2 requesting to arrange the audit. It is "submitted that all his attempts to get the gratuity have failed. The conduct of the respondents is illegal. Rs has therefore sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue the N.L.C. and disburse gratuity with 18% interest p. a. from 1-6-1992 till payment.

2. In the statement filed on behalf of the second respondent the essential facts have been admitted. For the purpose of drawing D.C.R.G. Liability / non liability certificate for the period from 1-4-1989 to 31-3-1992 is required. During the above period, the petitioner had served in four different places. The District Medical Officers, Ernakulam and Kasargode were requested to forward liability/non - liability certificate as early as on 4-5-1991. They were also remitted atleast on five occasions. On 15-7-1993 the District Medical Officer, (Health) Ernakulam sent the N.L.C, but then the District Officer, Kasargode has not so far issued the same stating that the audit of family welfare accounts and of multi purpose fund has not been concluded. The certificate will be issued to him as soon as information is received from the above office.

3. Heard.

4. A doctor who has retired from service as District Medical Officer has approached this Court with a grievance against his own colleagues, whose conduct is anything but helpful. The Accountant General indeed has admitted an amount of Rs. 28,075/- to him as D.C.R.G., which has not so far been disbursed for want of N.L.C., which had to be issued by respondents 2 and 3. The sole excuse for the delay is that the required clearance was not obtained from D.M.O. (Health) (Ernakulam and Kasargode. But in the statement it is stated that N.L.C. was obtained from D.M.O. Ernakulam, but has not been obtained from D.M.O. Kasargode, who was reported to have informed that the audit of the Family Welfare account and multi-purpose fund had not been concluded and it is expected to be over soon. In the statement filed on behalf of the second respondent it is also assured that the liability/non-liability certificate will be issued positively within a period of two months.

5. Disbursement of D.C.R.G. is subject to production of a non-liability certificate by the retired employee. Indeed the amount due by way of D.C.R.G is liable to be adjusted towards his liability, if the same has been determined and quantified as per the relevant rules. Under ruling 1 to R.116 "if the liabilities could not be finalised but could be estimated at the time of retirement, pension and death cum retirement gratuity will be released after accepting a surety bond or cash deposit or after withholding from the death cum retirement gratuity the estimated am