Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Direction Granting Extraordinary Pension; Holds Governor’s Sanction Mandatory Under 1981 Rules

Case Name: State of Uttarakhand v. Sarita Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 337
Date of Judgment/Order: 09 April 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Held: The Supreme Court held that grant of extraordinary pension under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1981 is subject to mandatory sanction of the Governor, and courts should not substitute such administrative discretion by directly issuing directions for grant of pension without the competent authority first considering the claim.

Summary: The case arose from a writ petition filed by the widow of a government doctor who was shot dead while on duty, seeking compensation and extraordinary pension. The Uttarakhand High Court awarded compensation exceeding INR 1.99 crore and directed grant of extraordinary pension. The State challenged this direction, contending that extraordinary pension could be granted only upon satisfaction of statutory conditions under the 1981 Rules and with sanction of the Governor. The Supreme Court examined the statutory framework and held that the Rules constitute a complete code governing eligibility, procedure, and grant of such pension, including discretionary powers vested in the Governor under Rules 4, 14, and 15. The Court emphasized that where a statutory authority is vested with discretion, courts should ordinarily direct such authority to exercise its power rather than assume that role. It found that neither the Governor had considered the claim nor had the procedural requirements under Rule 13 been followed. The High Court erred in directly granting extraordinary pension without such consideration. However, the Court upheld the compensation already paid and noted that the respondent had received INR 1 crore, compassionate appointment for her son, official accommodation, and family pension.

Decision: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s direction granting extraordinary pension, permitted the respondent to file a fresh application under the 1981 Rules, directed the competent authority to decide the claim within twelve weeks, and clarified that the compensation of INR 1,00,00,000 already paid shall not be recovered, with parties bearing their own costs.