Man’s 40-year live-in family gets relief as Delhi High Court tells Centre 'no legitimate reason' to withhold pension

Delhi High Court

• Delhi HC orders release of withheld pension, gratuity, interest to retired employee
• Court orders Centre to include live-in partners, children in family pension benefits
• Employee's openness about personal life clears them of misconduct charges.

Did our AI summary help?

The Delhi High Court has asked the Centre to revisit the plea of a retired government employee seeking recognition of his live-in partner of more than four decades and their children as his family for the purposes of family pension and healthcare benefits.

A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain held that the authorities were wrong in branding the employee’s conduct as grave misconduct and using it as a basis to deny him post-retirement dues. The court noted that the man had been open about his personal circumstances throughout his service and had not attempted to hide his long-standing relationship.

Setting aside a 2018 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the High Court overturned the decision that had upheld the permanent withholding of half of the petitioner’s pension and gratuity. The employee had superannuated in 2012, but his benefits were curtailed following disciplinary action initiated shortly before his retirement.

In its judgment delivered on January 7, the bench said, “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 went on to direct the authorities to release the withheld amounts, adding that interest must also be paid. “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,” it ordered.

The judges further instructed the Centre to examine the petitioner’s request for inclusion of his partner and her children in official pension records. “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,” the order stated.

According to the employee, his wife had deserted him years earlier and did not consent to a divorce. In 1983, he began cohabiting with another woman, and the relationship resulted in the birth of two children. These personal circumstances, he said, were consistently disclosed during his service.

Despite this, departmental action was taken against him in 1990 on allegations that he had neglected his wife and daughter by living with another woman. That inquiry ended with a penalty involving a reduction in his pay by four stages for four years.

A second round of disciplinary proceedings followed in 2011, shortly before his retirement, over claims that he had misrepresented facts while applying for diplomatic passports for his partner and children. This inquiry culminated in the decision to withhold 50 per cent of his pensionary and gratuity benefits.

The High Court, however, found no substance in the allegations. It observed that the petitioner had repeatedly disclosed both the prolonged absence of his wife and the existence of his live-in relationship in service records. As a result, there was no concealment or dishonest intent, particularly in relation to the passport applications.

Referring to the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, the bench noted that pension can be withheld only in cases involving serious wrongdoing. It concluded that such a threshold had not been met in this case. “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.

The judges also rejected the disciplinary authority’s argument that the petitioner lacked integrity, calling it misplaced. Pointing out the absence of any fraudulent conduct, the court added, “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.”