The State of Tamil Nadu, vs D. Sivakumar,

2026:MHC:3587
W.A.No.2596 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25-08-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
W.A.No.2596 of 2026
and
C.M.P.No.22972 of 2026
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to
Government, Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to
Government, Health and Family Welfare
Department, Secretariat, Chennai–600 009.
The Commissioner of Municipal
3.
Administration, Municipal Administration
and Water Supply Department, Chepauk,
Chennai – 5.
4. The Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug
Administration Department,
No.359, Anna Salai, Chennai – 6.
… Appellants
-vs-
1. D.Sivakumar
2. The Commissioner,
Tirupur City Municipal Corporation,
Tirupur, Tirupur District.
… Respondents
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:07 pm )

2026:MHC:3587
W.A.No.2596 of 2026
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order dated 08.01.2025 made in W.P.No.18785 of 2019 and
allow this Writ Appeal.
For Appellants: Mrs.Y.Kavitha,
Addl. Govt. Pleader
For Respondents: Mr.S.Nambi Arooran for R1
*
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam,J.)
The present Writ Appeal has been instituted, challenging Writ
Order dated 08.01.2025 in W.P.No.18785 of 2019. State is the appellant
before this Court.
st
2. Facts in brief are that 1 respondent was working as
Sanitary Inspector at Gudalur Municipality, Nilgiris District. Sanitary
Inspectors and Health Inspectors Grade-I from Health and Family
Welfare Department possessing B.Sc., degree were fit for Food Safety
Officers in the Food Safety Department constituted under the provisions
of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (Central Act No.34 of 2006) (in
short the 'Act, 2006'). The said Act and Rules came into effect from
05.08.2011.
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:07 pm )

2026:MHC:3587
W.A.No.2596 of 2026
3. On constitution of new Department, employees from
Public Health and Preventive Medicine Department, Corporations and
Municipalities were posted on deputation to implement the provisions of
the Act, 2006. However, during the relevant point of time, when these
employees were deputed, service Rules were not framed and by virtue
st
of Government Order, employees were posted on deputation. 1
respondent was also deputed from Municipality to Food Safety
Department.
4. Subsequently, Government framed Rules for appointment
to the post of Food Safety Officers in exercise of powers conferred under
the Act, 2006 and Food Safety Officers were recruited directly. For direct
recruitment, qualifications prescribed are higher than that of
qualifications possessed by deputed employees. As per the qualification
prescribed for the post of Food Safety Officer under Service Rules,
these deputed employees were not qualified. Thus, decision was taken
by Food Safety Department to cancel deputation, enabling deputed
employees to rejoin in their parent Departments. Since these employees
were willing to continue in the Food Safety Department, they filed Writ
Petitions, challenging the order of repatriation. Writ Court allowed the
Writ Petition mainly relying on the judgment of Division Bench of this
Court dated 04.10.2024 passed in W.A.No.1406 of 2024.
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:07 pm )

2026:MHC:3587
W.A.No.2596 of 2026
5. Perusal of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court
st
dated 04.10.2024 would show that 1 respondent in the said case was
repatriated on the ground of deficiency in service. Court rendered a
st
finding that deficiency in service may not be a ground to repatriate 1
st
respondent therein, since no opportunity was given to 1 respondent in
the said case. Since facts in the present case are distinguishable, the
st
said judgment is of no avail to the 1 respondent herein to succeed in
the writ petition filed by him.
6. Appellants would mainly contend that Food Safety Officers
were drawn to Food Safety Department on redeployment basis from
Public Health and Preventive Medicine Department, Municipal
Administration, Town Panchayat and Chennai Corporation. Food Safety
Officers were appointed from Food Inspectors, who have qualification of
B.Sc., Chemistry and as Degree with Chemistry as one of the subjects,
which qualification is prescribed in Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
All these deputed Food Safety Officers drawn from other Departments
have been originally recruited through various recruitment methods,
appointed through different modes with different educational
qualifications to suit the post for which they were recruited. Their
conditions of appointment, work nature, work experience as Food
Inspector and pay structure are entirely different.
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:07 pm )

2026:MHC:3587
W.A.No.2596 of 2026
7. Government subsequently framed Rules in
G.O.Ms.No.438, Health and Family Welfare (M1) Department dated
24.09.2018 for appointment to the post of Food Safety Officers.
Accordingly, the method of appointment to the post of Food Safety
Officers is direct recruitment mode only. Saving Clause provided in
G.O.Ms.No.438 cannot be construed as an absorption order. It protects
the existing Food Safety Officers to perform their duties as per Act, 2006
irrespective of their educational qualification.
8. The word “integration” mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.347 of
Health and Family Welfare (M1) Department dated 22.12.2011 has been
erroneously interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in its
judgment dated 04.10.2024, by holding as under:
“9. From the proceedings of the 1st appellant dated
st
20.09.2011, the 1 respondent/writ petitioner was appointed
as Food Safety Officer along with 384 others. From the order
of appointment, there is no indication to infer deputation. As a
matter of fact, the proceedings dated 22.12.2011, vide
G.O.Ms.No.347, Health and Family Welfare Department,
would show that the Government on the basis of the
recommendation and proposals of the Director of Public
Health and Preventive Medicine, created a new Department
called, Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration
[TNFS & DA] by integrating the existing Food Wing and
Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and
Drug Control Department. The word “integration” gives an
indication that all the Food Safety Officers who were named
in the order of appointment, got permanently absorbed in the
1st appellant Department. Therefore, the contention of the
appellants cannot be countenanced.
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:07 pm )

2026:MHC:3587
W.A.No.2596 of 2026
10. After the creation of the new Department called
TNFS&DA Department to implement the Food Safety and
Standards Act, 1954, the post of Food Inspector may not
survive. From the communication dated 01.10.2012 of the
1st appellant to the 2nd respondent herein, in view of the
creation of 584 posts of Food Safety Officers in the Food
Safety Wing, this Court has seen that the Food Safety
Department was integrated with the Health Department.
Therefore, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate
General that the writ petitioner was deputed to Food Safety
st
Department and the 1 respondent/writ petitioner was also
st
holding lien to conclude that the 1 respondent / writ petitioner
was bound to join the parent Department, namely, 2nd
respondent herein, is not acceptable.”
9. Deputation of an employee would not confer any right to
seek permanent absorption in the deputed Department. Deputations
were made from various Departments, Corporations and Municipalities
to Food Safety Department on its constitution in order to meet out
exigencies. Soon after Adhoc Rules were framed for recruitment to the
post of Food Safety Officers, deputed employees were repatriated to
their parents Departments. As per Adhoc Rules, mode of recruitment to
the post of Food Safety Officers is only through direct recruitment.
Therefore, deputed employees cannot claim right for permanent
absorption in violation of Adhoc Rules framed for appointment to the
post of Food Safety Officers.
10. Deputation or repatriation of an employee would not
cause prejudice to service conditions of employee. Deputation per se is
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:07 pm )

2026:MHC:3587
W.A.No.2596 of 2026
not a service condition and made in order to meet out certain
administrative exigencies and in the public interest. Therefore, service
st
conditions of employees are not violated nor infringed. Thus, claim of 1
respondent seeking permanent absorption per se is unsustainable.
Employees, on repatriation will have to work in their respective parent
Departments. Therefore, none of the service conditions of deputed
employees are violated. The very basis for repatriation would not provide
cause of action to institute writ proceedings.
11. Government has taken a policy decision in the interest of
public administration and to implement the Act, 2006 in an effective
manner and decided to depute employees from various Departments.
Soon after Adhoc Rules were framed and regular recruitments are
made, deputed employees are repatriated to their parent Departments.
The very action of Government, repatriating deputed employees to their
parent Departments would not provide a cause for filing writ petitions.
12. The basis on which issues were considered by Writ Court
is not in consonance with the established principles of service
jurisprudence. Pertinently, seniority and lien of deputed employees are
maintained in their parents Departments. Therefore, their services are
no way affected.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:07 pm )

2026:MHC:3587
W.A.No.2596 of 2026
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN,J.
AR
13. In view of the above discussions, impugned order of Writ
Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the present Writ Appeal is
allowed . The impugned order of Writ Court dated 08.01.2025 passed in
W.P.No.18785 of 2019 is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.)
25-08-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AR
To:
The Commissioner,
Tirupur City Municipal Corporation,
Tirupur, Tirupur District.
W.A.No.2596 of 2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:07 pm )