The petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to make continuous payment of provisional pension to the petitioner from October, 2008 within a specified time to be fixed by this Court.

2. Short facts leading to the writ petition are as follows:

When the petitioner was working as Deputy Inspector of Survey in Taluk Office, Tiruvadanai, a charge memo, dated 04.04.2006 was issued by the Assistant Director of Survey and Settlement, Sivagangai. By order, dated 30.06.2007, he was permitted to retire without prejudice to the departmental proceedings initiated against him under Rule 17-b of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Though the petitioner was sanctioned provisional pension, the said amount was stopped abruptly from the month of October, 2008, by the third respondent. Aggrieved over the same, when the petitioner made a representation, the third respondent has replied that the matter has been referred to the Additional Director of Survey and Land Records, Chennai for disbursement of provisional pension from the month of October, 2008.

3. The petitioner has further submitted that the disciplinary proceeding is yet to be finalised. The provisional conclusion arrived at by the first respondent to order a cut in pension to an extent of Rs.2,000/- per month is erroneous. Therefore, he has submitted further representation on 22.11.2008 on the finding. The petitioner has submitted that granting of provisional pension is statutory as per Rule 60(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and the respondents have failed in discharging his statutory duty. In these circumstances, he has come up with the present writ petition for the relief stated supra.

4. Considering the grievance expressed by the petitioner that even the provisional pension has not been disbursed, pending disposal of the disciplinary proceeding, Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate was put on notice and heard.

5. Placing reliance on the letter, dated 29.11.2008 of the third respondent, he submitted that clarification has been sought for from the Additional Director of Survey and Land Records, Chennai for disbursement of provisional pension from the month of October, 2008 and as soon as the clarification is obtained, the provisional pension would be disbursed.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner has been permitted to retire from service on 30.06.2007, on attaining the age of superannuation, pending charges against him under Rule 17-b of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

8. Rule 60(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 states that the provisional pension shall be authorised by the Audit Officer during the period of commencing from the date of retirement to the date on which, upon conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings, final orders are passed by the competent authority.

9. In the instant case, a provisional conclusion seemed to have arrived at by the Government to impose a cut off of Rs.2,000/- from the pension amount of the petitioner and accordingly, by letter dated 21.10.2008, the Government have instructed the petitioner to submit his explanation on the provisional conclusion. It is the case of the petitioner that he has submitted his explanation on 22.11.2008 to the Government objecting the provisional conclusion arrived at by the 1st respondent. The Government is yet to pass final orders in the disciplinary proceedings.

10. Provisional conclusion does not amount to final orders and it is always open to the disciplinary/appointing authority to confirm or modify or change the provisional conclusion, subject to the satisfaction of the explanation offered by the petitioner.

11. It is apparent that the final orders on the disciplinary proceedings are yet to be passed by the Government. In view of the statutory rule, this Court deems it fit that there is no need to seek