Court holds Governor’s sanction mandatory under 1981 Rules; permits fresh application for extraordinary pension while upholding ₹1 crore compensation
The Supreme Court partly allowed an appeal filed by the State of Uttarakhand in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 19840–19841 of 2021. A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s direction granting extraordinary pension to the widow of a deceased government doctor.
The Court held that the competent authority, namely the Governor, must examine such a claim under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1981.
2016, assailants shot him dead while he was discharging his duties.
After his death, his widow, Sarita Singh, sought compensation and extraordinary pension. She claimed that he died in the course of official duty.
A proposal dated May 26, 2016 recommended ₹50 lakh as compensation, compassionate appointment for the son, and other benefits. However, the authorities initially paid only ₹1 lakh.
As a result, Sarita Singh moved the Uttarakhand High Court under Article 226. She sought implementation of the proposal, enhanced compensation, and extraordinary pension.
By judgment dated September 12, 2018, the High Court awarded ₹1,99,09,000 as compensation with interest. It also directed the State to grant extraordinary pension under the 1981 Rules.
The State of Uttarakhand then challenged that judgment before the Supreme Court.
Appearing for the State, Additional Advocate General Gaurav Bhatia argued that authorities could grant extraordinary pension only if the claimant satisfied the conditions laid down in the 1981 Rules.
He submitted that Rule 4 makes the Governor’s sanction mandatory. He also argued that the deceased doctor’s post did not fall within a “risk” post under the Rules.
Further, the State contended that the respondent had not filed a proper application in the prescribed format under Rule 13.
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for the respondent, argued that Dr. Singh died while performing official duties.
He submitted that the case fell within the expressions “risk of office” and “violence” under Rule 3. He further argued that the State had not raised these procedural objections before the High Court.
According to him, the claim should not fail on technical grounds.
It emphasized that no authority can grant extraordinary pension without the Governor’s sanction under Rule 4. The Court also noted that the Governor exercises administrative discretion under the Rules, including Rules 14 and 15.
Therefore, the Court held that judges should not replace that statutory discretion unless the authority acts arbitrarily or fails to exercise it at all.
The Bench noted that the Governor had not considered the claim in the manner required by the Rules.
Relying on State of West Bengal v. Nuruddin Mallik and Union of India v. S.B. Vohra, the Court reiterated that judicial intervention should ordinarily require the authority to exercise its discretion rather than substitute that discretion itself.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s direction granting extraordinary pension.
It allowed the respondent to file a fresh application under the 1981 Rules within four weeks. The Court also directed the competent authority to decide the claim within 12 weeks after giving the respondent an opportunity of hearing.
Further, it directed the authority to decide the matter independently and without being influenced by earlier observations.
At the same time, the Court upheld the compensation of ₹1 crore already paid and made it clear that the State could not recover that amount.
The Court clarified that the authorities had already granted all other benefits, including family pension, compassionate appointment, and housing.
