The Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to consider the plea by a retired government employee seeking to include his live-in partner of over 40 years and their children in the Pension Payment Order for family pension and healthcare facilities.
The court held that the petitioner had never concealed his relationship with the live-in partner and, therefore, treating his efforts to include hers and their children's names as his family as "grave misconduct" to deny post-retirement benefits was erroneous.
A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain set aside a 2018 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) upholding the decision of the authorities to withhold 50 per cent of monthly pensionary and gratuity benefits be given to the personnel who retired in 2012.
"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 judgement passed on January 7.
"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 ordered.
According to the petitioner, after his wife deserted him without agreeing for a divorce, he started cohabiting with another woman in 1983 and two children were also born from their relationship.
He faced departmental proceedings on the charges of neglecting his wife and daughter by living with another woman in 1990 and consequently faced a penalty of reduction in pay by four stages for a period of four years.
Before his superannuation, another disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner in 2011 over alleged misrepresentation while applying for diplomatic passports for his partner and children, leading to the penalty of withholding 50 per cent of his monthly pension and gratuity benefits.
The court observed that the petitioner had disclosed the continuous absence of his wife, as well as his live-in relationship, throughout his service, and therefore there was no concealment or malafide intent to obtain diplomatic passports.
It noted that the CCS (Pension) Rules empower the authorities to withhold or withdraw pension of a government servant in cases of "grave misconduct or negligence" but the petitioner had not committed any such "grave misconduct or negligence".
"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 said.
"Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner maintained transparency, at all times, with the respondents, regarding his relationship, and had no mala fide intention to obtain diplomatic passports through misrepresentation or by defrauding the Department," it added.
The court further clarified that the disciplinary authority's assertion that the petitioner lacked personal integrity was also misconceived.