Supreme Court settles Rs 1 crore payout for widow of doctor shot on duty, but clarifies ‘Governor’s sanction’ rule

“On a complete reading of the Rules of 1981, it is clear that in the matter of award of an extraordinary pension, the sanction of the Governor is necessary,” the court said on April 9.

The bench heard the matter on April 9.

It added that such a sanction is expected to be granted by the Governor after examining all relevant aspects referred to in the Rules of 1981.

Case of 1.99 crore compensation

The matter originated from the tragic death of Dr Sunik Kumar Singh, a paediatrician who was shot dead on April 20, 2016, while discharging his duties at CHC Jaspur in Uttarakhand.

His widow, Sarita Singh, sought compensation and an extraordinary pension under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1981. While the state initially proposed Rs 50 lakh in compensation and provided a compensation appointment to the couple’s son, the widow approached the high court alleging only Rs 1 lakh had been released.

In 2018, a division bench of the Uttarakhand High Court ordered the state to pay approximately Rs 1.99 crore in compensation and granted an extraordinary pension with interest.

Appearing for the respondent-widow, senior advocate Vijay Hansaria argued that the death of Dr Sunil Kumar Singh occurred while he was performing his duties as a Medical Officer, and his death qualified for the grant of an extraordinary pension in view of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1981.

State’s challenge

Representing the Uttarakhand state, Additional Advocate General Gaurav Bhatia questioned the directions issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment, especially in the matter of the grant of an extraordinary pension to the respondent.

He submitted that the grant of an 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 Governor.

He further argued that, given the manner in which the death of Dr Sunil Kumar Singh occurred, it could not be said that the family was entitled to receive an extraordinary pension.

He highlighted the provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1981 and submitted that an application for the grant of an extraordinary pension was required to be made in the manner prescribed by Schedule IV of the Rules of 1981. He argued that no such application was made in the prescribed form.

What Rules of 1981 say

• In the matter of award of an extraordinary pension, the sanction of the Governor is necessary.
• Such a sanction is expected to be granted by the Governor after examining all relevant aspects referred to in the Rules of 1981.
• It is, therefore, obvious that at the first instance, it is for the Governor to consider whether a case has been made out for granting sanction to the award of an extraordinary pension.
• In the present case, it is seen that the Governor had no occasion whatsoever to consider the request made on behalf of the first respondent for the grant of an extraordinary pension.
• It is pertinent to note that the High Court has not found that the Governor had refused to exercise discretion in the said matter.

Rs 1 crore has been paid to family

Considering that the total amount of compensation now paid to the family of the first respondent is Rs 1 crore, the court stated that we think that the said directions do not deserve to be interfered with or modified in any manner.

The court noted that Rule 13 stipulates various matters of procedure, including the manner in which a claim for injury pension, gratuity or family pension is required to be considered, and under Rule 14, the Governor 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.

“It is true that after the first respondent made a request for a grant of an extraordinary pension on 20.01.2017, she could have been advised by the competent authority to make such a request under the Rules of 1981. The same, however, was not done,” the court observed.

The court permitted the widow to make an application seeking a grant of an extraordinary pension under the Rules of 1981 for the same to be considered in accordance with the law.