THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. SARITA SINGH
Judicial Restraint in Administrative Discretion: Courts Cannot Usurp Governor’s Statutory Power to Sanction Extraordinary Pension Under Service Rules.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 337
Decision Date: 09-04-2026
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 226; Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1981; Uttarakhand Medicare Services Persons and Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage of Property) Act, 2013; Administrative Law - Exercise of Statutory Discretion; Service Law - Extraordinary Pension
- Facts: Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, a Medical Officer serving in the State of Uttarakhand, was shot dead on April 20, 2016, while discharging his official duties at CHC Jaspur. His widow, the first respondent, sought extraordinary pension under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1981 (as adopted by Uttarakhand), and other compensatory reliefs. While the State provided partial ex-gratia payment, contractual compassionate appointment for her son, and arrears of salary, it contested the claim for extraordinary pension, arguing that the role of a doctor did not constitute a "post of risk" and that the mandatory procedure for such an award had not been followed.
- Procedural Posture: The first respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the Uttarakhand High Court. The High Court directed the State to pay approximately ₹1.99 crores in compensation and granted extraordinary pension. The State's review petition was dismissed. Aggrieved, the State of Uttarakhand preferred these civil appeals before the Supreme Court.
- Issue: Whether the High Court was justified in bypassing the statutory discretion of the Governor and directly awarding extraordinary pension and high monetary compensation under the Rules of 1981.
- Holding: No. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's direction regarding extraordinary pension, holding that the power to grant such an award rests with the Governor under the Rules of 1981 and the Court cannot usurp this administrative discretion at the first instance.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Rules of 1981 constitute a self-contained code where Rule 4 makes the sanction of the Governor mandatory for any award. Rules 13, 14, and 15 provide a specific procedure and vest the Governor with broad discretionary powers to evaluate "risk of office" and "special risk". Since the respondent's application was still pending and the Governor had no occasion to exercise this discretion, the High Court erred in substituting its own decision for that of the statutory authority. Citing "State of West Bengal Vs. Nuruddin Mallik", the Court reaffirmed that a writ of mandamus should generally direct an authority to exercise its discretion rather than the Court performing the function itself. However, the Court protected the ₹1 crore already paid to the widow during the proceedings, directing it not be recovered.
🔒 For Members Only