The Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to consider the plea of a retired government employee seeking inclusion of his live-in partner of over four decades and their children in the Pension Payment Order for family pension and healthcare benefits.
A Bench of 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 after his retirement in 2012.
The court held that the petitioner had never concealed his relationship with the woman with whom he had cohabited since 1983, and therefore his efforts to include her and their children as family members could not be treated as “grave misconduct”.
“We find no legitimate reason for the respondents to permanently withhold 50 per cent of the petitioner's monthly pension and gratuity or for denying family pension to the petitioner's dependents,” the court said in its judgment delivered on January 7.
Directing the authorities to release the withheld amounts, the Bench ordered: “Accordingly, we direct the respondents to release the aforesaid amounts to the petitioner, along with interest on the delayed payments at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, from the date they became due to the date of actual payment.”
“The respondents are further directed to consider the petitioner's plea to include the name of (the partner) and her children in the Pension Payment Order for family pension and CGHS facilities,” it added.
Also read: Forcing woman to continue with pregnancy violates her autonomy:HC
According to the petitioner, his legally wedded wife had deserted him without agreeing to a divorce, following which he began living with another woman in 1983. Two children were born from the relationship. During his service, he faced departmental proceedings in 1990 on charges of neglecting his wife and daughter, resulting in a penalty of reduction in pay by four stages for four years.
A second disciplinary inquiry was initiated in 2011, shortly before his superannuation, alleging misrepresentation while applying for diplomatic passports for his partner and children. This led to the penalty of withholding half of his pension and gratuity.
The High Court, however, noted that the petitioner had consistently disclosed both his wife’s long absence and his live-in relationship in official records, finding no concealment or mala fide intent.
“The record clearly establishes that the petitioner never concealed his relationship... He consistently disclosed (the existence of his live-in partner) and her children in the service records, identifying her as his wife based on prolonged cohabitation for the purposes of family pension benefits,” the court observed.
It further held that the disciplinary authority’s claim that the petitioner lacked personal integrity was misconceived, emphasising that the CCS (Pension) Rules permit withholding pension only in cases of “grave misconduct or negligence”, neither of which was established in the present case.
Follow us
