2026 INSC 337

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 1 of 20

REPORTABLE

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

J U D G M E N T

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

(Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1981

1 as adopted by the State of

1

For short, the Rules of 1981

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 t o 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 10 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 11 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 12 of 20

has also been granted discretion to make an award in

circumstances 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 Mallik

4, it was held as

under:

“…..It is not in dispute, in this case, that after the

management sent its letter dated 6

th

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 21

st

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. 18.09.1998

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.19840-19841 of 2021 Page 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 of 20

giving due opportunity to the first respondent. The decision in this

regard 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.