Supreme Court – Daily Orders
The State Of Uttarakhand vs Sarita Singh on 9 April, 2026
REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 337
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NOS.19840-19841 OF 2021)
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND APPELLANT
VERSUS
SARITA SINGH AND ORS. RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The State of Uttarakhand through its Chief Secretary is
aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.09.2018 in Writ Petition
No.284 of 2017 whereby the State Government has been directed
to pay an amount of compensation of ₹1,99,09,000/- with interest
at the rate of 7.5% per annum to the first respondent. A further
direction has been issued for grant of extraordinary pension to the
first respondent under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services
Signature Not Verified
(Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 19811 as adopted by the State of
Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2026.04.09
15:41:32 IST
Reason:
1
For short, the Rules of 1981
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 1 of 20
Uttarakhand, within a period of ten weeks along with interest at
the rate of 8.5 % per annum on the amount of arrears.
3. One Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh got himself registered with the
Bihar Medical Council on 01.04.1991. He worked as a Junior
Resident Doctor at A.N.Magadh Medical College Hospital, Gaya
from 01.04.1991 till 18.08.1991. Subsequently, he was appointed
as a Medical Officer on ad hoc basis with the State of Uttar Pradesh
on 22.08.1992. After the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000
was enacted, Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh opted to serve at the State of
Uttar Pradesh. However, since he was serving in the newly formed
State of Uttarakhand, he was not relieved. On 20.04.2016, while
he was discharging duties at CHC Jaspur as Pediatrician, he was
shot dead. A First Information Report was accordingly lodged and
Criminal Case No.773 of 2016 was filed against the alleged
assailants. On the premise that the death had been caused during
the discharge of duties, the first respondent, who is the widow of
Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, made a representation to the Chief
Secretary, Ministry of Health with a copy addressed to the Hon’ble
Chief Minister, State of Uttarakhand seeking grant of
extraordinary pension under the Rules of 1981. On 26.05.2016,
the Chief Secretary made a proposal for granting compensation of
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 2 of 20
₹50,00,000/- to the family of Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh along with
grant of compassionate appointment to the elder son of the
deceased and allotment of Government accommodation to the first
respondent for a period of five years. It is the case of the first
respondent that except for paying an amount of ₹1,00,000/- to the
family as compensation and grant of compassionate appointment
to her son as a Lecturer at the State Polytechnic College, Dehradun
on contractual basis, nothing further was done.
4. The first respondent, thus, approached the High Court of
Uttarakhand on 02.07.2017 by filing a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. She sought for implementation of
the proposal made by the Chief Secretary dated 26.05.2016 along
with further compensation of ₹4,18,18,000/- and grant of
extraordinary pension till the scheduled date of retirement of Dr.
Sunil Kumar Singh with payment of family pension thereafter.
Various other ancillary directions were also sought in the said writ
petition.
The Deputy Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare
Department filed an affidavit in reply on behalf of the State
Government. It was stated that the first respondent was not
entitled to grant of extraordinary pension as the work of a doctor
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 3 of 20
did not fall under the definition of “work” in which life is put to
risk. It was further stated that the State Government had paid the
arrears of salary of the deceased being ₹10,65,000/- along with ex
gratia amount of ₹1,00,000/-. Further, an official residence in
‘Group-C’ category was allotted to the family and the son of the
first respondent had been given compassionate appointment as a
Lecturer on contractual basis. It was, thus, stated that no further
relief was admissible to the first respondent.
5. The Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court by its
judgment dated 12.09.2018 found that though an amount of
₹50,00,000/- had been sanctioned by the Hon’ble Chief Minister
for being paid to the family of the deceased, only an amount of
₹1,00,000/- had been released. It further held that the husband of
the first respondent died while discharging official duties and
hence, she was entitled to extraordinary pension under the Rules
of 1981 as amended. The Division Bench, accordingly, proceeded
to calculate the amount of compensation by taking into
consideration the age of the deceased as 51 years along with his
last drawn salary of ₹1,27,300/-. Considering further prospects
including a possible promotion, it was held that the deceased
would have drawn salary of ₹1,91,000/-. After making necessary
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 4 of 20
deductions, an amount of ₹1,25,300/- was taken as the basis for
determining the amount of compensation by applying the
multiplier of eleven. Accordingly, it was held that the family was
entitled to an amount of ₹1,89,09,000/- as compensation along
with an amount of ₹10,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, love
and affection. The aforesaid amounts were thus directed to be paid
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing
of the writ petition. Payment of extraordinary pension was also
directed under the Rules of 1981 with the entire arrears being
payable with interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum. A further
direction was issued to enforce the provisions of the Uttarakhand
Medicare Services Persons and Institutions (Prevention of Violence
and Damage of Property) Act, 2013 in its letter and spirit.
The State of Uttarakhand through the Chief Secretary filed a
review application seeking review of the order dated 12.09.2018
principally on the ground that the post of a ‘Doctor’ was not a “post
of risk” under the Rules of 1981 and hence, no extraordinary
pension could be granted. The Division Bench of the High Court,
however, did not entertain the review application holding that
there was no error apparent on the face of record. The review
application was accordingly dismissed on 16.10.2020. Being
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 5 of 20
aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.09.2018 and the order in
review dated 16.10.2020, the State of Uttarakhand has come up
in appeal.
6. On 29.11.2021, while issuing notice in the present
proceedings, the State of Uttarakhand was directed to pay an
amount of ₹10,00,000/- to the first respondent as a condition for
staying the operation of the impugned judgment. It was also
directed that admissible amount of family pension be continued to
be paid to the first respondent. Thereafter, by the order dated
05.03.2025, it was noted that the proposal to pay an amount of
₹50,00,000/- had been approved by the Chief Secretary but the
said amount had not been paid to the first respondent.
Considering the interest payable on the said amount for a duration
of about nine years, an amount of ₹1,00,00,000/- was determined
as the amount payable to the first respondent by way of an interim
measure. Taking note of the fact that an amount of ₹11,00,000/-
had been paid to the first respondent, it was directed that the
remaining amount of ₹89,00,000/- be paid to her within a period
of six weeks. It is informed that the aforesaid order has been
complied with and the first respondent has accordingly received
an amount of ₹1,00,00,000/-.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 6 of 20
7. Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, learned Additional Advocate General for
the State of Uttarakhand questioned the directions issued by the
High Court in the impugned judgment, especially in the matter of
grant of extraordinary pension to the first respondent. It was his
submission that grant of extraordinary pension was subject to
satisfying the requirements prescribed under the Rules of 1981
and such amount was payable only with the sanction of the
Hon’ble Governor. Besides questioning the entitlement of the first
respondent to extraordinary pension in the light of Rule 3 of the
Rules of 1981, it was submitted that given the manner in which
the death of Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh occurred, it could not be said
that family was entitled to receive extraordinary pension. Inviting
attention to the provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1981, it was
submitted that an application for grant of extraordinary pension
was required to be made in the manner prescribed by Schedule IV
of the Rules of 1981. No such application was made in the
prescribed form. The first respondent merely addressed a
communication to the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and
Family Welfare Department seeking the grant of extraordinary
pension. It was pointed out that the sanction of the Hon’ble
Governor under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1981 was mandatory before
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 7 of 20
extraordinary pension could be ordered and that the matter was
entirely within the discretion of the Hon’ble Governor who could
take a decision on being guided by the Rules of 1981. Without
considering these aspects and without indicating as to how the
death of the husband of the first respondent could be treated to
have occurred during discharge of official duties, the grant of
extraordinary pension had been made. He, therefore, submitted
that the first respondent having been paid an amount of
₹1,00,00,000/- as compensation, nothing further was payable to
the family of the deceased. No further direction thus ought to be
issued and the grant of extraordinary pension was liable to be set
aside.
8. Per contra, Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned Senior Advocate for
the first respondent supported the impugned judgment. According
to him, the death of Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh occurred while he was
performing his duties as a Medical Officer. His death qualified itself
for grant of extraordinary pension in view of Rule 3 of the Rules of
1981. He emphasized the expressions “risk of office”, “special risk”
as well as “violence” as specified in Rule 3(6), (7) and (8) of the
Rules of 1981. The High Court rightly found that the death had
occurred while the husband of the first respondent was on duty,
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 8 of 20
which finding was supported by sufficient material on record. The
objection now sought to be raised by the appellant that the first
respondent did not make an application as required by Rule 13(1)
of the Rules of 1981 was never raised before the High Court at any
point of time. In fact, the application moved by the first respondent
was accepted on 20.01.2017 and thereafter, the case for grant of
compensation came to be recommended by the Additional Chief
Secretary on 31.01.2017. After a lapse of considerable period, the
claim of the first respondent did not deserve to be denied by relying
upon such technicalities. It was further submitted that in absence
of any basis for denying the grant of extraordinary pension, the
claim of the first respondent was sought to be defeated in such a
manner. The first respondent and her family having suffered the
loss of their family member, there was no reason to deprive them
of the award of extraordinary pension. He, therefore, submitted
that there was no reason whatsoever to interfere with the
impugned judgment of the High Court. In the alternate, it was
suggested that this Court itself ought to re-consider the question
as regards eligibility to receive extraordinary pension.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length
and with their assistance we have also perused the documentary
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 9 of 20
material on record. In the writ petition preferred by the first
respondent before the High Court of Uttarakhand, various prayers
were made which included a prayer for grant of compensation of
₹50,00,000/-; a direction to clear the arrears of salary of the
deceased being ₹10,65,000/-; grant of compassionate
appointment to the elder son of the first respondent with a further
prayer for grant of compensation of ₹4,18,18,000/- as well as grant
of extraordinary pension under the Rules of 1981. When the writ
petition was pending before the High Court, the appellant in
paragraph 6 of its affidavit in reply stated that on 21.06.2016, ex
gratia amount of ₹1,00,000/- was paid to the first respondent. On
17.11.2016, the son of the deceased was appointed as a Lecturer
in a Government Polytechnic College on contractual basis.
Thereafter, on 29.05.2017, the first respondent was allotted an
official residence in ‘Group-C’ category. Further, on 22.09.2017,
arrears of salary of ₹10,65,000/- was paid. As noted above, during
pendency of the present proceedings, further compensation to the
extent of ₹89,00,000/- has been paid. Thus, the total amount of
compensation now paid to the family of the first respondent is
₹1,00,00,000/-. With regard to the aforesaid prayers and the
reliefs granted to the first respondent, we are of the considered
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 10 of 20
opinion that the said directions do not deserve to be interfered with
or modified in any manner.
10. The only contentious issue that now survives for adjudication
is the entitlement of the first respondent to extraordinary pension.
On perusal of the Rules of 1981, it is evident that the said Rules
are in the nature of a Code in itself. The circumstances in which
the family members of an employee of the State Government
becomes entitled to receive extraordinary pension and the manner
in which the same is determined has been stipulated. Under Rule
4, award of extraordinary pension under the Rules of 1981 is only
with the sanction of the Governor. Administrative discretion has to
be exercised by the Governor in the contingencies indicated
therein. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1981 reads as under:
“4. (i) No award shall be made under these rules except with the
sanction of the Governor.
(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, if a
government servant sustains injury or is killed or dies of injuries
received by his own default or as the result in a material degree of
his own contributary negligence, or in other circumstances such
that the Governor consider that an award should not be made or
that the amount thereof should be reduced, any award to which a
title is otherwise conferred by these rules may be withheld or
reduced.”Rule 13 stipulates various matters of procedure including the
manner in which a claim for injury pension or gratuity or family
pension is required to be considered. Under Rule 14, the Governor
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 11 of 20
has also been granted discretion to make an award incircumstances not covered by the Rules of 1981 or exceeding the
amount that is admissible under the Rules. Rule 15 gives further
discretion to the Governor to re-distribute the amount of pension
or even permit in very exceptional cases, the continuation of the
pension amount to the children of a deceased Government servant
beyond the prescribed age. Rules 13 to 15 of the Rules of 1981 are
reproduced here under:-
“13. (1) In respect of matters of procedure, all awards under these
rules are subject to any procedure rules relating to ordinary
pensions for the time being in force, to the extent that such
procedure rules are applicable and are not inconsistent with these
rules.
(2) When a claim for any injury pension or gratuity or family
pension arises, the head of the office or of the Department in which
the injured, or the deceased, Government servant was employed
will forward the claim through the usual channel to the
Government with the following documents:
(i) A full statement of circumstances in which the injury was
received, the disease was contracted or the death occurred.
(ii) The application for injury pension or gratuity in Form A,
or as the case may be, the application for family pension in Form
B of the forms set forth in Schedule IV.
(iii) In the case of an injured Government servant or one who
has contracted a disease a medical report in form C of the forms
set forth in Schedule IV. In the case of a deceased Government
servant a medical report as to the death or reliable evidence as to
the actual occurrence of death if the Government servant lost his
life in such circumstances that a medical report cannot be
secured.
(iv) A report of the audit officer concerned as to whether an
award is admissible under the rules and if so of what amount.
14. The Governor may make an award –
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 12 of 20
(1) in circumstances not covered by the terms of these rules, or
(2) exceeding in amount or differing in kind from the award
admissible under these rules.
[(3) to any dependant or dependants of a deceased Government
servant to whom rule 2 of rules was applicable.]2
15. [The Governor may, at his discretion-
(1) redistribute a pension among the children of a deceased
Government servant if the widow or widows to whom it had been
granted cease to draw it, and in the event of such redistribution
the maxima and minima for motherless children in schedule III
shall apply also;
(2) permit in vary exceptional cases the children of a
deceased Government servant to continue to receive their pensions
beyond the age of 18 in the case of a male child and beyond the
age of 21 in the case of a female child; and(3) subject to the first proviso under clause (1) of rule 11,
increase the amount of pension sanctioned under rule 11, if either
of the parents attains the age of 65 or becomes seriously
incapacitated by ill health.]3”
11. The record indicates that the first respondent made a
composite application on 20.01.2017 seeking grant of monetary
compensation of ₹50,00,000/-, allotment of official
accommodation at Dehradun for a period of five years and also
award of extraordinary pension. On consideration of the aforesaid
application, a recommendation was made by the Director General,
Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Uttarakhand,
Dehradun. The relevant documents were forwarded to the
2
Introduced by Notification no.M-581/x-406-1937 dated April 6, 1943.
3
Introduced by Notification no.M-1022/x-406-1937 dated July 5, 1943.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 13 of 20
Additional Chief Secretary of the Medical Health and Family
Welfare Department. While the prayers as made by the first
respondent in her application on 20.01.2017 were pending
consideration, she approached the High Court by filing the
aforesaid writ petition. The Division Bench of the High Court
proceeded on the premise that the husband of the first respondent
died while discharging his official duties. It appears that the aspect
that though the Hon’ble Chief Minister had agreed to pay
compensation of ₹50,00,000/- but only an amount of ₹1,00,000/-
was paid to her has heavily weighed with the High Court. In this
background, the High Court proceeded to determine the amount
of monetary compensation and also held the first respondent
entitled to extraordinary pension. The factual adjudication as
required under the Rules of 1981 preceding the grant of
extraordinary pension has not been undertaken. It is true that
after the first respondent made a request for grant of extraordinary
pension on 20.01.2017, she could have been advised by the
Competent Authority to make such request under the Rules of
1981. The same, however, was not done. Be that as it may, we are
of the view that the present is a case where the request for grant
of extraordinary pension is required to be made, considered and
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 14 of 20
determined under the Rules of 1981. The aspect of sanction being
required to be granted by the Hon’ble Governor coupled with the
discretion vested in the Office of Governor under Rules 14 and 15
impels us to require such exercise to be undertaken under the
Rules of 1981. We may indicate the reasons for such course.
12. On a complete reading of the Rules of 1981, it is clear that in
the matter of award of extraordinary pension, the sanction of the
Hon’ble Governor is necessary. Such sanction is expected to be
granted by the Hon’ble Governor after examining all relevant
aspects referred to in the Rules of 1981. Thus, grant of sanction to
the award of extraordinary pension is pursuant to an exercise of
administrative power conferred on the Hon’ble Governor. It is,
therefore, obvious that at the first instance it is for the Hon’ble
Governor to consider whether a case has been made out for
granting sanction to the award of extraordinary pension. It may be
stated that where an authority has been conferred with
discretionary powers that have to be exercised while taking an
administrative decision and the considerations to be taken into
account while exercising such discretion are duly enumerated, it
would always be preferable that such authority itself takes such
decision. In such a scenario, the Court would be slow to itself take
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 15 of 20
such decision especially when the authority on whom the power
has been conferred to take such decision has had no occasion to
examine the matter and exercise its discretion in accordance with
law. It would be a different matter if such authority has either
refused to take any decision for a reasonable period of time or the
decision taken is found to be wholly arbitrary or suffering from
non-application of mind. Even in such situations, normally, a
direction to the authority concerned to take a decision afresh
would follow. Ordinarily, the Court would not substitute its
decision in place of the decision required to be taken by the
concerned authority in exercise of its discretion.
13. In this regard, useful reference may be made to two decisions.
In State of West Bengal Vs. Nuruddin Mallik4, it was held as
under:
“…..It is not in dispute, in this case, that after the
management sent its letter dated 6th August, 1992 for the
approval of 31 staff, viz both teaching and non teaching staff,
both the District Inspector of School and the Secretary of
Board sought for certain information through their letters
dated 21st Sept., 1992. Instead of sending any reply, the
management filed the writ petition in the High Court, leading
to passing of the impugned orders. Thus, till this date the
appellant authorities have yet not exercised their discretion.
Submission for the respondents was that this Court itself
should examine and decide the question in issue based on
the material on records to set at rest the long standing issue.4
Civil Appeal No.4895 of 1998 D.O.D. 18.09.1998Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 16 of 20
We have no hesitation to decline such a suggestion. The
Court can either direct the statutory authorities, where it is
not exercising its discretion, by mandamus to exercise its
discretion or when exercised to see whether it has been
validly exercised. It would be inappropriate for the Court to
substitute itself for the statutory authorities to decide the
matter.”Similarly, in Union of India Vs. S.B.Vohra and Ors.5, the
decision in Nuruddin Malik (supra) was referred to by the three
Judge Bench and it was observed as under:
“….. It is, however, trite that ordinarily the Court will not
exercise the power of the statutory authorities. It will at the
first instance allow the statutory authorities to perform their
own functions and would not usurp the said jurisdiction
itself.”
14. In the present case, it is seen that the Hon’ble Governor had
no occasion whatsoever to consider the request made on behalf of
the first respondent for grant of extraordinary pension. Such
request had not been turned down on merits. Only on the basis of
the composite application dated 20.01.2017 that was yet to be
considered, the prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus for
grant of extraordinary pension came to be made by the first
respondent in the writ petition filed on 02.07.2017. It is pertinent
to note that the High Court has not found that the Hon’ble
Governor had refused to exercise discretion in the said matter. No
2
2004 INSC 5
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 17 of 20
finding is recorded that despite the case of the first respondent
being put before the Hon’ble Governor, a decision was not being
taken in the matter of grant of extraordinary pension. In these facts
therefore, in our view, it would have been in the fitness of things
for the High Court to have first requested the Hon’ble Governor to
examine the matter and consider the request for grant of
extraordinary pension as sought by the first respondent. However,
the High Court by the impugned judgment itself proceeded to take
a decision in the matter of grant of extraordinary pension without
the Hon’ble Governor having an occasion to exercise discretion and
take a decision in accordance with the Rules of 1981. For these
reasons, we find that the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court
in issuing a writ of mandamus and directing the appellants to
grant extraordinary pension to the first respondent is unwarranted
and thus, deserves to be interfered with.
15. We are, therefore, inclined to permit the first respondent to
make an application seeking grant of extraordinary pension under
the Rules of 1981 for the same to be considered in accordance with
law. Such direction is proposed to be issued bearing in mind the
fact that the first respondent has received monetary compensation
of ₹1,00,00,000/-, her son has been granted compassionate
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 18 of 20
appointment, she has been allotted an official residence in ‘Group-
C’ and the arrears of salary of the deceased have also been paid to
her. Moreover, the first respondent is also receiving family pension
and the only aspect that now requires determination is the
entitlement to extraordinary pension. The High Court not having
adverted to these aspects and the award of extraordinary pension
not being made in accordance with the Rules of 1981 especially in
the absence of any sanction by the Hon’ble Governor, the
impugned order to the extent it holds the first respondent entitled
to extraordinary pension with a direction to pay such amount
stands set aside.
16. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 12.09.2018
passed in Writ Petition No.284 of 2017 is partly modified as under:-
(a) The direction to pay extraordinary pension to the first
respondent is set aside.
(b) The first respondent is permitted to make an application for
grant of extraordinary pension under the Rules of 1981 within the
period of four weeks from today. If such application is duly made,
the Competent Authority shall consider the same in accordance
with the Rules of 1981 and determine the entitlement of the first
respondent to receive extraordinary pension. This be done after
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 19 of 20
giving due opportunity to the first respondent. The decision in thisregard be taken within a period of twelve weeks from the date of
receipt of such application and the outcome thereof be
communicated to the first respondent.
(c) It is clarified that the claim for extraordinary pension shall be
considered and decided on its own merits without being influenced
by any observations made either in the judgment of the High Court
impugned herein or any observations made in this judgment.
(d) The amount of monetary compensation of ₹1,00,00,000/-
paid to the first respondent pursuant to the interim orders passed
in these proceedings shall be the amount of monetary
compensation to which she is entitled. The same shall not be
recovered from her.
17. The Civil Appeals are partly allowed in aforesaid terms leaving
the parties to bear their own costs. Pending interlocutory
applications are also disposed of.
..…..………………………..J.
[ J.K.MAHESHWARI ]
……..………………………..J.
[ ATUL S. CHANDURKAR ]
NEW DELHI,
APRIL 9, 2026.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 20 of 20
