A public interest litigation (PIL) petition has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging a government order (G.O.) issued on December 24, 2025 for promoting seven officers, including T. Udhayachandran, of the 1995 batch of Indian Administrative Service (IAS) to the grade of Chief Secretary.
First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan have adjourned the hearing on the case to June 10, 2026 after questioning as to how a PIL petition could be entertained by the court on an issue related to officers in government service.
The judges told the petitioner’s counsel the Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions beginning from Dr. Duryodhan Sahu versus Jintendra Kumar (1998), had held that government service matters could not be generally raised before the constitutional courts by way of PIL petitions.
Further, stating that concerns related to officers in government service could be raised only before the Central Administrative Tribunal or by way of filing writ petitions before a single judge of the High Court, the judges said, the top court had time and again clarified that PILs should not be used as a shortcut.
However, when the counsel sought time for the appearance of his senior to argue the matter, the judges adjourned the hearing to June 10 after taking note that Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan, assisted by central government senior panel counsel C. Kulandaivelu, had entered appearance on behalf of the Centre.
The December 2025 G.O. had been issued for promoting IAS officers M.A. Siddique, R. Jaya, P. Senthilkumar, Sandhya Venugopal Sharma, Mr. Udhayachandran, Hitesh Kumar S. Makwana and B. Chandra Mohan to the Chief Secretary grade of IAS with effect from January 1, 2026.
The G.O. also accorded sanction for creation of temporary posts of Additional Chief Secretary in the departments of Economics and Statististics, Health and Family Welfare and School Education so that Ms. Jaya, Mr. Senthilkumar and Mr. Mohan could continue to occupy those positions at that point of time.
The G.O. also stated Mr. Makwana shall stand promoted to Chief Secretary cadre without prejudice to his central deputation as Surveyor General of India. Then, Mr. Siddique and Mr. Udhayachandran were serving as Managing Director of Chennai Metro Rail Limited and Finance Secretary respectively. Ms. Sharma was the chairperson of Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation.
However, the PIL petitioner M. Balakrishnan of Anna Nagar in Chennai claimed the G.O. ought not to have been issued without concurrence/approval of the Centre and had listed the Union Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions as well as the Union Cabinet Secretary as respondents to the case.
He sought a direction to the Principal Accountant General’s office in Tamil Nadu to refrain from paying higher salary, allowances, perquisites, arrears or other pensionary/monetary benefits to the seven IAS officers on the basis of the G.O. under challenge.
Published - June 07, 2026 11:38 am IST
Tamil Nadu / judiciary (system of justice) / justice and rights
Source: The Hindu - India News
