IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

and W.M.P.Nos.159 and 160 of 2024

1.N.Viswanathan

2.J.Ezhilmaran

3.N.Meganathan

4.S.Maladevi

5.P.K.Arul Prakasam

6.M.Kumar

7.B.C.Kamalakannan

8.D.Radhakrishnan

9.V.Muralidharan

10.T.Malarvizhi

11.K.Saravanakumar

12.K.Velmurugan

13.S.Ravichandran

14.N.Suresh Kumar

15.M.Ganesan 16.K.Ganesan

17.G.Murugesan 18.G.Velmurugan 19.B.Bushpalatha 20.P.Murugeswari

21.P.Srinivasan ... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Director of Adi Dravidar Welfare, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

3.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Development Corporation, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. ....Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Letter No.05/ADW.1/2022-8, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 25.09.2023 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.E4/35470/2021 dated 03.10.2023 and quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioners to continue under the respective District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officers without deployment or deputation to TAHDCO, within a reasonable period as may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ranganathan For Respondents : Mr.R.U.Dinesh Raj Kumar Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Letter No.05/ADW.1/2022-8, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 25.09.2023 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.E4/35470/2021 dated 03.10.2023 and for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioners to continue under the respective District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officers without deployment or deputation to TAHDCO.

2. The petitioners were initially appointed as Overseers and were subsequently promoted as Junior Engineers in Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department. However, they were suddenly re-deployed for a period of one year to TAHDCO on re-deployment basis vide impugned proceedings in Letter No.05/ADW.1/2022-8, dated 25.09.2023. Challenging the said proceedings, the present writ petition has been filed and for a consequential direction to continue under the respective District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officers without deployment or deputation to TAHDCO.

3. The issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7278 of 2014 where similar facts were involved wherein the petitioners therein who were working as Social Security Assistants in the Employees Provident Fund were transferred to Zonal Training Institute, South Zone, Chennai. The said proceedings were challenged before this Court. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, considering the fact that the consent of the petitioners have not been obtained for deputing them to the other Associations, held that the deputation on transfer is in violation of the proceedings of the fifth respondent therein. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held as follows:-

“12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in State of Punjab and others v. Inder Singh & Others [(1997) 8 SCC 372] in para 18 held thus:

8. The concept of deputation is well understood in service law and has a recognized meaning. Deputation has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word deputation is of no help. In simple words deputation means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of