The Supreme Court recently reprimanded the Uttarakhand government for failing to provide ex-gratia compensation to the widow of a government doctor who was shot dead while on duty at a community health center in April 2016.

This was despite the then Chief Minister approving a decision to grant ₹50 lakh.

Expressing displeasure over the family's prolonged legal battle for nearly nine years to receive compensation, the Court directed the Uttarakhand Government to pay them ₹1 crore.

"We are prima facie of the view that even after approval of the proposal to pay Rs. 50 lakhs to the family of deceased by the Chief Secretary, it has not been honoured and the family is litigating since more than nine years. The request made by family to release the sanctioned amount was not acceded to on the pretext of non- approval of the release of the said amount. In our view, looking to the gravity of the incident, the sanction must be honoured and the amount be paid along with interest. Thus, adding interest for about 9 years, we quantity the amount in total Rs.1 crore," the Court ordered.

"The Government through the Chief Secretary had proposed to pay at least a sum of Rs.50 lakhs financial assistance as ex-gratia payment to the family of the deceased doctor who was shot dead in hospital during working by assailants. The said note was approved by the Chief Minister of the State at the relevant point of time. Later, only a sum of Rs.1 lakh was paid on the pretext that under the Rules, such huge amount cannot be paid," the Court noted.

A bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar issued the order in a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Uttarakhand, challenging a 2018 directive from the Uttarakhand High Court. The High Court had ordered the State to pay ₹1.99 crore in compensation to the doctor's widow, along with 7.5% annual interest from the date of filing the petition. Additionally, the High Court directed the State to implement the provisions of The Uttarakhand Medicare Service Persons and Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2013 and to grant extraordinary pensionary benefits to the doctor's family.

The High Court observed that on May 26, 2016, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand had proposed an ex-gratia compensation of ₹50 lakh to the Chief Minister, which was subsequently approved.

"The petitioner's husband was discharging the official duties at CHC, Jaspur. He was shot dead on 20.4.2016. The Hon'ble Chief Minister has agreed to pay compensation of Rs.50.00 lakh but till date, only a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh has been paid to the petitioner. It was the duty cast upon the State Government to protect the life of petitioner's husband. He was on duty as per the averments made in the petition. Killing a doctor, while on duty, amounts to negation of rule of law," the High Court observed in its order. After the High Court dismissed the State's review petition in October 2020, the SLP was filed in the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the State argued that the family had already received benefits, including leave encashment, GPF, family pension, gratuity, and GIS. It also highlighted that the deceased doctor's son was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the Health Department on compassionate grounds, in compliance with the Supreme Court’s interim order dated October 18, 2021. Additionally, the State informed the Court that ₹10 lakh had been paid to the family as per a previous directive.

The State contended that the high court’s use of the multiplier method to compute compensation was unsustainable. On the other hand, the doctor's family argued that had the promised compensation been paid in 2016, they would not have been compelled to endure years of litigation. After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court directed the State to pay ₹1 crore in compensation.

Since ₹11 lakh had already been disbursed, the court ordered the payment of the remaining ₹89 lakh. The matter is set for further consideration on April 22 to ensure compliance.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia appeared for the State.

Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria appeared for the respondent

Case : The State of Uttarakhand v Sarita Singh and others | SLP (c) 19840-19841/2021