WP No. 3614 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI WP No. 3614 of 2026 and WMP.Nos.4028 and 4030 of 2026 Velmurugan S/o. Ranganathan, 29 Main Road, Ambalpuram, Bhavanagiri Taluk, Cuddalore District ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Marketing corporation Ltd., (TASMAC), Thalamuthu Natrajan Maaligai, Egmore Chennai 8 2. The Senior Regional Manager TASMAC Ltd., Trichy Zone, Trichy 620 001 3. The District Manager TASMAC Ltd., Cuddalore, Cuddalore District ..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records of the impugned order vide proceeding in Na.Ka.No. A1 (RV)/ 573/ 2025 dated 24.12.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to continue his job as a salesperson in the Shop No.2522 Chidambaram. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 3614 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 For Petitioner(s): M/s.M.Raghul Kousik For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Balakrishnan ORDER The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent in proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No. A1 (RV)/ 573/ 2025 dated 24.12.2025, whereby the petitioner, who was working as a Salesman in TASMAC Shop No.2522, Chidambaram, was transferred to Shop No.2419, P.A.Adhanur. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has been working as a Salesman under the respondents for more than five years with an unblemished service record. According to the petitioner, the impugned transfer order has been passed on the premise that the petitioner had requested for such transfer. However, it is the case of the petitioner that he had never made any request, either orally or in writing, seeking transfer from the said shop. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made a representation dated 31.12.2025 before the respondents, objecting to the transfer. Since the said representation has not been considered, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed based on an incorrect assumption that the petitioner had https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 3614 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 sought transfer. It is further submitted that the petitioner has an unblemished service record and the transfer has caused hardship to him. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has already submitted a representation to the authorities and the same will be considered in accordance with law. 5. In view of the above submissions and without going into the merits of the case, this Court directs the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 31.12.2025 and pass appropriate orders, without interfering with the impugned order, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. This Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 03-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ANU https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 3614 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 M.DHANDAPANI, J. ANU To 1. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Marketing corporation Ltd., (TASMAC), Thalamuthu Natrajan Maaligai, Egmore Chennai 8 2. The senior Regional Manager TASMAC Ltd., Trichy Zone, Trichy 620 001 3. The District Manager TASMAC Ltd., Cuddalore, Cuddalore District WP No. 3614 of 2026 and WMP.Nos.4028 and 4030 of 2026 03-02-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis