On-duty paediatrician shot dead: Rs 1 crore compensation stands, pension needs governor's nod- Supreme Court

New Delhi: Setting aside a Uttarakhand High Court's direction that granted an extraordinary pension to the widow of a paediatrician who was shot dead while on duty, the Supreme Court has recently held that such a benefit can be awarded only after due consideration under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1981 and with the sanction of the Governor. In its order, the apex court upheld the Rs 1 crore compensation to the kin.

The Division Bench comprising J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar made these observations while hearing an appeal filed by the State of Uttarakhand challenging the High Court’s order. The issue before the Apex Court was whether the respondent was entitled to an extraordinary pension and whether the High Court was justified in granting it directly without the mandatory sanction of the Governor under the 1981 Rules.

The Bench held,

"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."

It further clarified that "the claim for an 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."

Background

The State of Uttarakhand has challenged a 2018 High Court judgment directing it to pay Rs 1.99 crore compensation with 7.5% interest and grant an extraordinary pension with 8.5% interest on arrears to the widow of Dr Singh.

The doctor was appointed as a Medical Officer on an ad hoc basis in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 22.08.1992. Following the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, he opted to serve in Uttar Pradesh. However, since he was working in the newly formed State of Uttarakhand, he was not relieved from his duties there.

On 20.04.2016, while serving as a Pediatrician at CHC Jaspur, the doctor was shot dead during the discharge of his duties. Claiming that his death occurred in the line of duty, his widow (the first respondent) submitted a representation to the Chief Secretary, Ministry of Health, with a copy to the Chief Minister of Uttarakhand, seeking an extraordinary pension under the 1981 Rules.

Although a proposal was made to grant Rs 50 lakh compensation, a job to his son, and accommodation, the family alleged that only Rs 1 lakh compensation and a contractual job for the son were provided.

The first respondent filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court seeking implementation of the Rs 50 lakh compensation proposal, enhanced compensation of Rs 4.18 crore, and grant of an extraordinary pension along with family pension.

The State opposed the plea, arguing that a doctor’s work does not qualify as hazardous for an extraordinary pension. It stated that Rs 10.65 lakh salary arrears, Rs 1 lakh ex gratia, government housing, and a contractual job for the son had already been provided, and no further relief was due.

However, the High Court found that despite approval of Rs 50 lakh, only Rs 1 lakh was paid. Holding that the doctor died in the line of duty, it declared the widow entitled to an extraordinary pension. The Court calculated Rs 1.89 crore as compensation using salary, age, and future prospects, and added Rs 10 lakh for loss of consortium. It directed payment with 7.5% interest, along with extraordinary pension and arrears carrying 8.5% interest, and ordered strict enforcement of the Uttarakhand Medicare Act, 2013.

Appearing for the State, Additional Advocate General Gaurav Bhatia challenged the High Court’s directions, particularly the grant of an extraordinary pension. He argued that such a pension is subject to conditions under the 1981 Rules and requires the Governor’s sanction. He contended that the respondent did not meet the criteria under Rule 3, and given the circumstances of his death, the case did not qualify for an extraordinary pension.

He emphasised that sanctions by the Governor under Rule 4 are mandatory and discretionary, guided by the Rules. He therefore argued that since Rs 1 crore compensation has already been paid, no further relief should be granted, and the direction for extraordinary pension should be set aside.

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, for the respondent, supported the High Court’s ruling, arguing that the doctor died while on duty and his case qualified for extraordinary pension under Rule 3 of the 1981 Rules, including provisions on "risk" and "violence."

Observation by Supreme Court

After hearing both sides, the Court noted that the 1981 Rules constitute a complete code, laying down both the conditions and procedure for grant of extraordinary pension. It observed that under Rule 4, such pension can be awarded only with the sanction of the Governor, who exercises administrative discretion in the matter.

Examining the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court held:

"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 an extraordinary pension. The factual adjudication as required under the Rules of 1981 preceding the grant of extraordinary pension has not been undertaken."

The Court further noted that although the respondent could have been guided to apply in the prescribed manner under the Rules, this was not done. Given the requirement of the Governor’s sanction and the discretion vested under the Rules, the Court held that the claim for extraordinary pension must be considered strictly in accordance with the 1981 Rules.

The Bench emphasised that the power to grant an extraordinary pension is administrative and discretionary in nature and it is for the competent authority, i.e., the Governor, to take such a decision after evaluating all relevant factors.

Judicial interference, the Court clarified, is warranted only in cases of inaction or arbitrariness. It observed:

"In such a scenario, the Court would be slow to itself take 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."

Applying these principles, the Court noted that the Governor had no occasion to consider the kin;s claim, as her application dated 20.01.2017 was still pending when she approached the High Court.

The Court held that the High Court, without first directing the competent authority to decide the claim, proceeded to grant an extraordinary pension itself. This approach, the bench found as unwarranted, as the High Court exercised jurisdiction without allowing the statutory authority to apply its discretion under the Rules.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court's direction granting an extraordinary pension. However, considering that the respondent has already received Rs 1 crore as compensation, along with other benefits such as compassionate appointment to her son, government accommodation, salary arrears, and family pension, the Court permitted her to apply afresh for an extraordinary pension under the 1981 Rules.

The Court partly modified the High Court’s judgment with the following directions:

(a) The direction to pay an extraordinary pension to the first respondent is set aside.

(b) The first respondent is permitted to make an application for the grant of an extraordinary pension under the Rules of 1981 within the period of four weeks from today. If such an 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 an extraordinary pension. This to be done after 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 to be communicated to the first respondent.

(c) It is clarified that the claim for an 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.

To view the court order, click on the link below:

Also read- Medical seats are national resource, cannot be left vacant: Supreme Court on NEET fraud case