JUDGMENT :- 1. The prayer in the Writ petition is to quash the order of the Second Respondent dated 22.9.2010, withdrawing the provisional pension paid to the Petitioner, who was not permitted to retire from service on 30.6.2000. 2. The said order withdrawing the provisional pension was passed by Second Respondent on the ground that the Petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 14.7.1986 for involvement of offences under Sections 120-B, 409, 467, 468, 471, 420, 109, IPC read with Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The suspension order was revoked on 28.11.1990. Thereafter the Petitioner was permitted to retire on 30.6.2000 without prejudice to the outcome of the Criminal proceedings pending and a sum of `6,725 was sanctioned as provisional pension and the same is being paid under PPO. No.35775 till the impugned order was passed. 3. In the Criminal case charge sheet was filed by the DVAC before the III Additional Special Judge, Chennai, and the said case was tried as C.C. No.36 of 1986 and by Judgment dated 13.4.2006 the Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment. For the offences under Sections 409, 467, and 471 r/w 467, I.P.C., the Petitioner was imposed with a punishment of rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of `1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for each section; and for the offences under Sections 468, 420, 477-A, I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(c) r/w 5(2) and 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he was imposed with the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of `500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for each section; and that, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. The impugned order withdrawing the provisional pension was passed based on the conviction by invoking Rule 8(1)(1)(a) & (b) and Rule 9(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which is being followed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, which states that future good conduct shall be a condition precedent for the grant of pension and its continuance and the Petitioner having been convicted for the Criminal offences his bad conduct is found and provisional pension was cancelled. 5. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as against the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C. No.36 of 1986 by judgment dated 30.4.2006, Criminal Appeal in C.A. No.382 of 2006 was filed before this Court and this Court ordered suspension of sentence and the Petitioner is on bail. The learned Counsel also submitted that the Pension Rule relied on by the Respondents viz., Rule 8(1)(1)(a) & (b) and Rule 9(a) are in respect of final pension and not with reference to provisional pension. 6. The said rule viz., Rule 8(2) states, where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a Court, action under sub-rule (1) shall be taken in the light of a judgment of the Court relating to such conviction. Sub-rule (1)(a) states, future good conduct shall be a implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuance under these Rules. Sub-rule (1)(b) contemplates withholding or withdrawal of pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the Petitioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct. 7. Petitioner is not sanctioned with final pension in terms of Chapter-II of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, but he has been sanctioned only with provisional pension in terms of Rule 69. Rule 69(1) deals with sanction of provisional pension not exceeding the maximum pension which would have been admissible on the basis of qualifying service upto the date of retirement of the Government Servant. Rule 69(2) contemplates adjustment of provisional pension paid against the final retirement benefits sanctioned to such Government Servant upon conclusion of such proceedings but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension or the pension is reduced or withheld either permanently or for a specific period. 8. The issue to be decided in this Writ Petition is as to whether the Petitioner is entitled to get provisional pension pending Criminal Appeal in C.A. No.382 of 2006, which was filed against the order of conviction and sentence in C.C. No.36 of 1986. 9. Rule 69 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, deals with payment of provisional pension. The said rule reads as follows: “69. 9. Rule 69 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, deals with payment of provisional pension. The said rule reads as follows: “69. Provisional pension where Department or Judicial proceeding may be pending.- (1)(a) In respect of a Government servant referred to in sub-rule (4) of Rule 9, the Head of office shall pay the provisional pension not exceeding the maximum pension which would have been admissible on the basis of qualifying service up to the date of retirement of the Government servant. (b) No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the Department or Judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon: Provided that no such gratuity, shall be withheld in respect of a Government servant who has been permitted to retire without prejudice to the Departmental or Judicial proceedings pending against him, where such Departmental or Judicial proceedings are only for administrative lapses not involving any pecuniary loss to the Government. Provided further that where a Government Servant, against whom a Departmental or Judicial proceedings involving pecuniary loss to Government is pending, is permitted to retire without prejudice to such Departmental or Judicial proceedings, a portion of gratuity may be authorized after deducting the maximum computed financial loss to the government for which the Government servant is held liable, along with un-recovered Government dues if any, of such Government servants, with interest. (2) Payment of provisional pension made under sub-rule (1) shall be adjusted against final retirement benefits sanctioned to such Government servant upon conclusion of such proceedings but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension or the pension is reduced or withheld either permanently or for a specific period. (3) Nothing contained in this rule shall prejudice the operation of Rule 6, when final pension is sanctioned upon the conclusion of the Departmental or Judicial proceedings.” Rule 69 is very specific which states that provisional pension is to be ordered where a Departmental or Judicial proceeding is pending and the same shall be paid until conclusion of the Departmental and Judicial proceedings and final orders thereon is passed, which means finality in the proceeding is reached. 10. 10. It is well settled proposition of law that Appeal is a continuation of Original proceedings and therefore, the Judicial proceeding will end only after finality is reached in the Appeal: (a) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also cited the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Smt. Akhtari Bi v. State of M.P., 2001 (2) CTC 100 (SC): JT 2001 (4) SC 40, to emphasis his argument that Appeal is a continuation of Original proceeding. In the said decision it is held that Appeal being a statutory right, the Trial Court verdict does not attain finality during pendency of the Appeal and in such a case, trial is deemed to be continuing. (b) Filing of Appeal destroys the finality of judgment under Appeal, as held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Dharam Dutt v. Union of India, 2004 (1) SCC 712 , (para 69). The same view is taken in the subsequent decision reported in Omprakash Verma & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2010 (6) Supreme 729 . 11. In this case, even though Petitioner is convicted by the Trial Court, the said conviction and sentence has not become final and therefore judicial proceedings as mentioned in Rule 69(1)(b) has not become final. As long as the Judicial/Departmental proceeding has not become final, a person is entitled to get provisional pension as per Rule 69 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. 12. The Respondents have also paid provisional pension from the year 2006 even though the Petitioner was convicted by the judgment dated 13.4.2006, i.e., for more than four years. The Petitioner has also filed advance hearing Petition for early disposal of C.A. No.382 of 2006 in M.P. No.1 of 2011, which is pending before this Court and copy of the same is also produced before me. Petitioner is also aged 69 years and it is stated in the Affidavit that his only son is deaf and dump, who is solely depending on the provisional pension hitherto received by the Petitioner and if the provisional pension is not paid pending Criminal Appeal, their right to life will be seriously affected and they have to starve. Further, the idea behind the payment of provisional pension is like paying subsistence allowance for sustenance of life to a delinquent employee and his family. Further, the idea behind the payment of provisional pension is like paying subsistence allowance for sustenance of life to a delinquent employee and his family. Hence, denial of provisional pension is like slow poisoning of the Petitioner, against whom Judicial proceeding has not reached its finality. 13. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited the Division Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in N.K. Suparna v. Union of India, 2005 (1) ATJ 420, wherein similar provision regarding Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, was considered and it is held that during the pendency of the Appeal against conviction, if suspension of sentence is ordered, provisional pension cannot be denied till the conclusion of the Appeal. 14. Applying the above decisions to the facts of this case and having regard to the provision under which the Petitioner was sanctioned provisional pension, namely Rule 69, I am of the view that the impugned order passed on 22.9.2010 is unsustainable as the Respondents have not noticed Rule 69 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, and accordingly the same is set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the Respondents to continue to pay the provisional pension, paid till August 2010, till the disposal of the Appeal. Petitioner’s further right to get full pension will depend upon the order to be passed in the Criminal Appeal. There is no order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.