Courts cannot grant extraordinary pension directly where statutory rules mandate Governor’s sanction and administrative discretion.

Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, a Pediatrician serving at CHC Jaspur, was shot dead while discharging his official duties on April 20, 2016

Following his death, his widow (the first respondent) sought extraordinary pension under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1981 ("Rules of 1981"), as adopted by Uttarakhand

Although the Chief Secretary initially proposed ₹50,00,000 compensation and compassionate appointment, only ₹1,00,000 was paid, and the deceased’s son was appointed only on a contractual basis

The first respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Uttarakhand seeking implementation of the proposal and further compensation

The High Court awarded ₹1,99,09,000 as compensation with 7.5% interest and directed the grant of extraordinary pension under the Rules of 1981 with 8.5% interest

During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, the State paid a total of ₹1,00,00,000 to the first respondent as an interim measure

Whether the High Court was justified in directly ordering the grant of extraordinary pension without the sanction of the Governor as required under the Rules of 1981

Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to substitute a court’s decision for an administrative discretion vested in a statutory authority (the Governor) before that authority has exercised such discretion

The court primarily applied the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1981, specifically Rule 4, which mandates that no award shall be made except with the sanction of the Governor

It further relied on Rule 13 (procedure for claims), Rule 14 (Governor’s discretion for awards in uncovered circumstances), and Rule 15 (discretion to redistribute pension)

The Court applied the principle that when an authority is vested with discretionary administrative power, the Court should not substitute its own decision for that of the authority

It cited State of West Bengal v. Nuruddin Mallik and Union of India v. S.B. Vohra, establishing that a Court may compel a statutory authority to exercise its discretion but should not usurp that jurisdiction itself

The Court observed that the Rules of 1981 constitute a complete code for determining extraordinary pension, placing the power of sanction exclusively with the Governor

The High Court erred by undertaking the factual adjudication and determining the award itself without the Governor having had an opportunity to examine the matter under Rule 4

The Supreme Court reasoned that administrative discretion must be exercised by the designated authority at the first instance, and judicial intervention is only appropriate if the authority refuses to act or acts arbitrarily

Since the first respondent had not submitted a formal application in the prescribed Form B as required by Rule 13, and the Governor had never formally considered the claim, the High Court’s issuance of a mandamus was premature and unwarranted

However, the Court acknowledged the substantial compensation already paid (₹1 crore) and the other reliefs granted (housing and compassionate appointment) in balancing the equities

The Court set aside the direction to pay extraordinary pension but permitted the first respondent to file a formal application under the Rules of 1981 within four weeks

The Competent Authority was directed to decide this application on its own merits within twelve weeks

Finally, the Court held that the ₹1,00,00,000 already paid to the respondent shall be treated as final monetary compensation and shall not be recovered by the State