NEW DELHI: Delhi HC asked the Centre to consider a retired govt employee’s plea to include the names of his live-in partner of over 40 years and their children in the Pension Payment Order for family pension and healthcare facilities, reports Abhinav Garg.A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain recently observed that the retired employee never concealed his relationship, and treating his efforts to include the names of his partner and kids as his family as “grave misconduct” to deny post-retirement benefits was erroneous. It set aside a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order in 2018 upholding the decision of authorities to withhold 50% of monthly pensionary and gratuity benefits. The Central Administrative Tribunal order in 2018 had upheld decision of authorities to withhold 50% of monthly pensionary and gratuity benefits, to be given to the personnel who retired in 2012. 
“We find no legitimate reason for the respondents to permanently withhold 50% of the petitioner’s monthly pension and gratuity, or for denying family pension to the petitioner’s dependants,” Delhi HC said, and directed the authorities to “release the aforesaid amounts to the petitioner, along with interest on the delayed payments at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date they became due to the date of actual payment.” HC said the govt department concerned must also 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.According to the petitioner, after his wife deserted him without agreeing to a divorce, he started cohabiting with another woman in 1983, and two children were also born from their relationship. He faced departmental proceedings on charges of neglecting his wife and daughter by living with another woman in 1990 and consequently faced a penalty of reduction in pay by 4 stages for a period of 4 years.Before his superannuation, another 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% of his monthly pension and gratuity benefits. The HC, however, observed that the petitioner disclosed the continuous absence of his wife as well as about he being in a live-in relationship throughout his service and, therefore, there was no concealment or mala fide intent. It noted that the CCS (Pension) Rules empower the authorities to withhold or withdraw the pension of a govt servant in cases of “grave misconduct or negligence”, but the petitioner did not commit any such “grave misconduct or negligence”.”Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner maintained transparency, at all times, with the respondents regarding his relationship, ” it added.
