JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in G.O.(D) No.278 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E2) Department dated 27.05.2015 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to grant pension and to settle the pensionary benefits due, pursuant to the retirement of the petitioner on 31.01.1993. 1. The writ petition on hand has been filed questioning the validity of the final order passed in G.O.(D) No.278, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E2) Department, dated 27.05.2015. 2. The petitioner joined as a Gramasevak in the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department on 01.06.1956. He was subsequently promoted and retired as Block Development Officer on 31.01.1993. The petitioner was placed under suspension on the last day on his retirement, as departmental proceedings were initiated. An allegation of criminal mis-conduct was also raised and the writ petitioner was not allowed to retire from service. 3. The petitioner states that he had received subsistence allowance from the 3rd respondent from 21.03.1993 onwards. The petitioner filed O.A.No.2997 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of suspension and accordingly the petitioner was deemed to have retired from service and the payment of terminal benefits would be subject to the result of the criminal case. The Government issued G.O.(D)No.316, R.D.Department, dated 03.06.2003 revoked the order of suspension and permitted the petitioner to retire from service on 31.01.1993. However, the terminal benefits were delivered on disposal of the criminal case. The criminal case in Special Case No.2 of 1997 ended with an order of conviction of 2 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of six months. 4. The petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No. 687 of 2005 and final order was passed on 31.03.2011. Accordingly, the punishment of 2 years of Rigorous Imprisonment was reduced to one year Simple Imprisonment. Subsequent to 10.08.2005 date of conviction by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu the subsistence allowance has been completely stopped. The Block Development Officer stopped the payment from August 2005 onwards. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that though the order impugned passed G.O(D) No. 278, dated 27.05.2015 is under challenge in the present writ petition. Subsequent to 10.08.2005 date of conviction by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu the subsistence allowance has been completely stopped. The Block Development Officer stopped the payment from August 2005 onwards. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that though the order impugned passed G.O(D) No. 278, dated 27.05.2015 is under challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner has restricted his prayer to an extent of claiming payment of subsistence allowance for the period from August 2005 till the date of passing of final order on 27.05.2015. 6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the contentions raised by the petitioner. However, he could not be able to dispute the non-payment of subsistence allowance during the period from the year 2005 to 2015 to the writ petitioner. Even the written instructions dated 13.07.2022 given by the Collector Tiruvallur District itself stated that the petitioner has not been paid any subsistence allowance and arrears of subsistence allowance for the said period. 7. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner was admittedly convicted by the trial Court and the punishment was alone reduced/modified in the Criminal Appeal and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for any other benefits and to that effect the Government has also passed orders. The said order cannot be said to be infirm, in view of the fact, that the petitioner was convicted by the Criminal Court of Law. However during the interregnum period, the petitioner had not received subsistence allowance for which he is entitled to. It is admitted by the respondents that the subsistence allowance during the said period from 2005 to 2015 had not been paid to the writ petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also reiterated that the petitioner has restricted his relief to the extent of payment of subsistence allowance alone. This being the restricted relief sought for by the petitioner in the present case, this Court is inclined to consider the case. Accordingly, the order impugned passed by the 1st respondent in G.O(D).No. 278, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 27.05.2015 stands confirmed. However the respondents are directed to pay the subsistence allowance due to the writ petitioner from August 2005 till the date of passing of final order i.e., 27.05.2015, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However the respondents are directed to pay the subsistence allowance due to the writ petitioner from August 2005 till the date of passing of final order i.e., 27.05.2015, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With these directions, this Writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.