Chennai, June 3 A major reshuffle in the Tamil Nadu Prison Department has triggered widespread resentment among prison staff, who allege that the transfers were arbitrary and in violation of established government norms.
Several affected personnel are now considering legal action.
On May 27, DIG of Prisons Maheswar Dayal issued a sweeping order transferring 176 chief head warders across the state. The order includes long-distance reassignments, such as moving staff from Palayamkottai Central Prison to Vellore, nearly 600 kilometres apart, and vice versa.
Similar transfers were recorded from sub-jails in Nagapattinam and Ooty to Coimbatore and Palayamkottai, covering distances between 350 and 450 kilometres.
The move is part of a larger reshuffle underway over the past two months, involving assistant jailers, warders, and head warders.
While those posted over 400 kilometres away have been granted eight days to report for duty, others must report within six days.
Adding to the pressure, many have been verbally instructed to vacate their official quarters immediately.
A prison official based in Coimbatore expressed anguish: “My two children are in high school, and I’ve already paid their annual fees. How can I relocate my family overnight?”
Since April, nearly 250 personnel have been transferred, and insiders warn the move could damage morale and disrupt daily operations.
“This scale of reshuffling without consultation or consideration is unprecedented and could seriously impact the smooth functioning of prison administration,” said a senior official on condition of anonymity.
“Earlier, transfers were done through counselling and usually within a 60-100 km radius, keeping families in mind,” an officer said.
According to government rules, transfers are permitted once every three years.
A key government order issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel M) Department in 1977 mandates that, when both spouses are in government service, efforts must be made to post them in the same station to support family welfare and children’s education. Already, one assistant jailer has secured a stay order from the court, while many others are reportedly preparing to file petitions challenging the transfer orders.
“If someone is facing proven corruption charges, a transfer -- even to distant locations -- is understandable. But these general transfers should factor in personal circumstances,” said a staffer from the southern zone.
In response, a senior prison department official defended the move, stating that many of the transferred employees had served in the same facility for over five years.
“The decision was made to break long-standing networks and eliminate potential corruption rings within prisons and sub-jails,” the official said, without offering further details.
As dissatisfaction continues to rise among the affected staff, legal battles and administrative scrutiny appear inevitable.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor