New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed the Central government to reconsider a retired government employee’s request to include his live-in partner of more than four decades and their children in official pension records for family pension and healthcare benefits. The court ruled that denying post-retirement benefits on the grounds cited by authorities was unjustified and legally unsustainable.
A Bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain set aside a 2018 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that had upheld the government’s decision to withhold 50 per cent of the petitioner’s monthly pension and gratuity. The employee had retired in 2012 and had been penalised following disciplinary proceedings initiated before his superannuation.
In its judgment delivered on January 7, the High Court observed that the petitioner had never concealed his personal circumstances during his service. The court held that treating his consistent efforts to recognise his long-term partner and their children as family members as “grave misconduct” was erroneous. It found no valid justification for the permanent withholding of half of his pensionary benefits or for denying family pension to his dependents.
The court ordered the authorities to release the withheld pension and gratuity amounts along with interest at six per cent per annum, calculated from the date the payments became due until their actual disbursal. It further directed the government to consider including the names of the petitioner’s partner and her children in the Pension Payment Order for family pension and Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) facilities.
According to the petitioner, his legally wedded wife had deserted him years earlier and did not agree to a divorce. He subsequently began cohabiting with another woman in 1983, and the couple had two children. During his service, he faced departmental action in 1990 for neglecting his wife and daughter, resulting in a reduction in pay. Later, in 2011, a fresh inquiry was initiated over alleged misrepresentation while applying for diplomatic passports for his partner and children, which led to the penalty affecting his pension.
The High Court noted that the petitioner had consistently disclosed both the absence of his wife and the existence of his live-in relationship throughout his service tenure. It held that there was no evidence of concealment, fraud or mala fide intent. The Bench also clarified that while pension rules allow benefits to be withheld in cases of grave misconduct or negligence, the facts of the case did not meet that threshold.
Rejecting the disciplinary authority’s findings, the court stated that the record clearly showed transparency on the part of the petitioner and that allegations questioning his personal integrity were misconceived.
