The Supreme Court has partly modified a Uttarakhand High Court ruling that granted extraordinary pension to the widow of a government doctor who was shot dead while on duty. While maintaining compensation already paid, the Court held that the pension claim must first be decided by the competent authority as per rules.
Background of the Case
The case arose after Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, a government medical officer, was shot dead on April 20, 2016, while serving at a Community Health Centre in Jaspur. His widow, Sarita Singh, sought compensation and extraordinary pension, claiming that the death occurred during official duty.
Read also:- Madras High Court Shields Lawyer from Defamation Case, Allows Trial Against Co-Accused
Initially, the State sanctioned ₹50 lakh compensation along with other benefits. However, only a small portion was paid, prompting the widow to approach the Uttarakhand High Court in 2017.
In September 2018, the High Court directed the State to pay nearly ₹1.99 crore as compensation with interest and also granted extraordinary pension under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1981.
Challenging this decision, the State of Uttarakhand argued that extraordinary pension could not be granted without fulfilling procedural requirements and without approval of the Governor, as mandated under the 1981 Rules.
The State also contended that the High Court had directly ordered pension without proper evaluation of whether the death fell under “risk-related duty” as defined by the rules.
On the other hand, the respondent argued that the doctor’s death clearly occurred during discharge of official duties and deserved pension benefits.
Read also:- Supreme Court Allows Hotel Owner to Join Building Rules Case, Sets Aside Punjab & Haryana HC Order
The Supreme Court noted that the Rules of 1981 form a complete framework governing extraordinary pension and require prior sanction of the Governor.
“The grant of extraordinary pension is subject to administrative discretion… and requires sanction of the Governor,” the bench observed.
The Court emphasized that such discretion must first be exercised by the competent authority, and courts should not substitute that decision unless there is clear arbitrariness or refusal to act.
It further pointed out that the Governor had never been given an opportunity to consider the claim on merits.
The Supreme Court upheld the compensation already paid to the widow, noting that ₹1 crore had been disbursed during the proceedings and would not be recovered.
Read also:- No Pension Without 20 Years’ Service: Supreme Court Dismisses SBI Employee’s Claim
However, it set aside the High Court’s direction granting extraordinary pension.
The Court permitted the respondent to file a fresh application under the 1981 Rules within four weeks. It directed the competent authority to decide the claim within twelve weeks, after giving due opportunity to the applicant.
The Court clarified that the decision on pension must be taken independently, without being influenced by earlier observations.
Case Details
Case Title: State of Uttarakhand vs Sarita Singh & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 19840–19841 of 2021
Bench / Judges: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Decision Date: April 9, 2026
