V.Subramaniyan Vs The Commissioner

W.P.No. 1254 of 2026

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

This matter is listed under the caption ‘For Being Mentioned’ at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶4

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the 4^th line of para-3 of the order dated 21.01.2026, there is a typographical error in the date, which has been typed as 22.07.2000 instead of 22.07.2020. Therefore, it is prayed that necessary correction may be made and fresh order copy may be issued.

¶5

This Court perused the order dated 21.01.2026 and finds that in the 4^th line of para-3 of the said order, the date has been wrongly typed as 22.07.2000 instead of 22.07.2020

¶6

Accordingly, Registry is directed to correct the date as 22.07.2020 in the order dated 21.01.2026 which is appearing in the 4^th line of para-3 of the order and issue fresh order copy to the parties.

¶7

30.01.2026

¶8

kkn

¶9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶10

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶11

KKN

¶12

W.P.No. 1254 of 2026

¶13

30.01.2026

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶16

DATED: 21-01-2026

¶17

CORAM

¶18

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶19

WP No. 1254 of 2026 and WMP.No.1453 of 2026

¶20

V.Subramaniyan S/o. Venu, Assistant, Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai 15, Having residence at No. 2/76 Mariamman Koil Street, Melathalanur, Kallakurichi 605 766.

¶21

..Petitioner(s)

¶22

Vs.

¶23

The Commissioner, Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶24

..Respondent(s)

¶25

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for records and proceedings of the respondent and quash the impugned transfer order dated 22.09.2025 vide Na.Ka. 63293/ 2025 /Gen 1-3 and consequently direct the respondent to cancel the transfer and reinstate of work in the said Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Saidapet in accordance of law.

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Balaji For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Balathandayutham Special Government Pleader

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned transfer order dated 22.09.2025 and consequently direct the respondent to cancel the transfer and reinstate of work in the said Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Saidapet.

¶30

By consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, this

¶31

Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant vide memo dated 15.02.2020 by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and placed at Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Saidapet vide order dated 22.07.2000 and, within a period of six months, the petitioner would be vertically promoted as Deputy Block Development Officer in accordance

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

with the seniority procedure. In such circumstances, the petitioner was put to repeated mental abuse and harassment thereby, the petitioner made a complaint against his colleagues but, the higher official instead of taking action against the co-employees, passed the impugned transfer order, transferring the petitioner from the respondent Office to Kallakurichi Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Office. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner made a complaint as against the co-employees, instead of taking action against the co-employees, the respondent abruptly, transferring the petitioner is a punishment in nature, which is not acceptable one. He would also submit that the petitioner has to be placed in the seniority at the appropriate place in the Kallakurichi District Rural and Panchayat Raj whereas the petitioner was placed as junior most in the said place hence, the respondent may be directed to consider and fix his seniority in the transferred place in the appropriate post as per the existing rules. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent

¶38

would submit that though the transfer order was passed on 22.09.2025, till date, the petitioner has not joined duty in the transferred place. However, he would submit that after joining the duty, the direction issued by this Court will be considered and the petitioner will be placed in the appropriate place in the seniority list.

¶39

In view of the above, the following directions are issued:

¶40

i) The petitioner is directed to join duty in the transferred place within

¶41

a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the respondent or concerned competent authority shall regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of 22.09.2025, till the date of joining as per the existing rules.

¶42

ii) The respondent is directed to fix the petitioner’s seniority at appropriate place as per the existing rules in the transferred place, since the transfer is not on the request of the petitioner and it is made by the respondent due to administrative reasons.

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44