Consider govt employee’s plea to include live-in partner in family pension: Delhi HC to Centre
A bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain said the petitioner government employee never concealed his relationship and was erroneous in treating his efforts to include the names of his wife and children as his family to deny post-retirement benefits as “serious misconduct”.
The board therefore annulled the 2018 decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which upheld the authorities’ decision to withhold 50 percent of monthly pensions and bonus benefits for staff who retired in 2012.
“We found no legitimate reason for the defendants to permanently withhold 50 percent of the plaintiff’s monthly pension and gratuity or to deny family pensions to the plaintiff’s dependents,” the court said in its January 7 decision. he said.
“Accordingly, we direct the respondents to pay the said amounts to the petitioner along with overdue payment interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of actual payment.
“The respondents are also directed to consider the petitioner’s request to include the name of the petitioner (spouse) and their children in the Pension Payment Order for family pension and CGHS facilities,” the order said.
According to the applicant, after his wife left him without accepting the divorce, he started living with another woman in 1983 and two children were born from this relationship. In 1990, he was subjected to administrative investigation on charges of neglecting his wife and daughter by living with another woman, and as a result, he faced a four-stage salary deduction for four years.
Before his retirement, another disciplinary investigation was initiated against the applicant in 2011 for allegedly making false statements when applying for diplomatic passports for his wife and children, and this investigation led to a penalty that resulted in the deduction of 50 percent of his monthly pension and bonus benefits.
The court observed that the petitioner had disclosed the constant absence of his wife and cohabiting relationship throughout his service and, therefore, there was no concealment or malafide for obtaining a diplomatic passport.
He noted that the CCS (Pension) Rules empower authorities to withhold or withdraw the pension of a civil servant in cases of “gross misconduct or negligence”, but the petitioner had not committed any such “grave misconduct or negligence”.
“The record makes clear that the plaintiff never concealed his relationship. He consistently disclosed (the existence of his live-in partner) and their children in his service records and identified her as his wife by virtue of long-term cohabitation for the purposes of family retirement benefits,” the court said. he said.
“Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has always maintained transparency about his relationship with the respondents and has no malicious intent to obtain a diplomatic passport by making false statements or defrauding the Ministry,” he added.
The court also declared that the disciplinary authority’s claim that the petitioner lacked personal integrity was misunderstood.
