In a significant ruling that touches upon evolving family structures, pension rights, and administrative fairness, the Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to consider a retired government employee’s plea to include his live-in partner of over four decades and their children in the Pension Payment Order for family pension and healthcare benefits. The court also set aside earlier orders that had withheld a substantial portion of the employee’s pension and gratuity, holding that the authorities had erred in treating his conduct as “grave misconduct”.

The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain on January 7, 2026. The court was hearing a petition filed by a retired government employee who had challenged the decision of the authorities, as well as a 2018 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had upheld the withholding of 50 per cent of his monthly pension and gratuity benefits after his retirement in 2012.

The High Court came down strongly on the punitive approach adopted by the authorities, observing that the petitioner had never concealed his personal circumstances during his service and that denying him post-retirement benefits on that basis was unjustified.

“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 bench said. The court accordingly directed the authorities to release the withheld amounts along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, calculated from the date the payments became due until the date of actual disbursal.

Beyond restoring the pensionary benefits, the High Court also issued a crucial direction to the Centre to consider the petitioner’s request to include the names of his live-in partner and their children in the Pension Payment Order, not only for family pension but also for Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) facilities.

The case has its roots in events dating back several decades. According to the petitioner, his legally wedded wife had deserted him and refused to agree to a divorce. In 1983, he began cohabiting with another woman, with whom he shared a long-term live-in relationship. Over the years, two children were born from this relationship, and the family lived together openly.

However, the petitioner’s personal life became the subject of departmental scrutiny during his service. In 1990, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on charges of neglecting his wife and daughter by living with another woman. As a result of those proceedings, he was penalised with a reduction in pay by four stages for a period of four years.

Despite this penalty, the petitioner continued in service and, according to the High Court, consistently disclosed his personal circumstances in official records. He maintained transparency regarding the prolonged absence of his wife as well as his live-in relationship, identifying his partner and their children as his family for certain administrative purposes.

Trouble resurfaced shortly before his retirement. In 2011, another disciplinary inquiry was initiated against him, this time over allegations of misrepresentation while applying for diplomatic passports for his live-in partner and their children. The authorities alleged that he had falsely projected them as his family members, which, according to them, amounted to grave misconduct.

Based on this inquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed a severe penalty: withholding 50 per cent of the petitioner’s monthly pension and gratuity benefits. After his superannuation in 2012, the petitioner challenged this decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal. In 2018, the CAT upheld the authorities’ action, prompting the petitioner to approach the Delhi High Court.

Examining the facts afresh, the High Court disagreed with the tribunal’s conclusions. The bench noted that the Central Civil Services (CCS) Rules do empower the government to withhold or withdraw pension in cases of “grave misconduct or negligence”. However, it stressed that this power must be exercised judiciously and only when the alleged misconduct meets the threshold of gravity envisaged under the rules.

In the present case, the court found that the petitioner’s actions did not amount to grave misconduct or negligence. On the contrary, the record showed that he had been forthright about his personal life throughout his service.

“The record clearly establishes that the petitioner never concealed his relationship,” the court observed. “He consistently disclosed [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 bench rejected the authorities’ claim that the petitioner had acted with mala fide intent while applying for diplomatic passports. It held that since the petitioner had openly disclosed the continuous absence of his wife and the existence of his long-term live-in relationship, there was no question of fraud or misrepresentation.

“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,” the court said.

The High Court also took exception to the disciplinary authority’s assertion that the petitioner lacked personal integrity. It described this conclusion as misconceived, noting that integrity could not be questioned merely because an individual’s personal life did not conform to traditional norms, especially when there was no element of concealment or dishonesty.

By setting aside the CAT’s 2018 order, the court reaffirmed that pension is not a bounty or a discretionary benefit but a hard-earned right accrued through years of service. Withholding pensionary benefits, it emphasised, has serious consequences for a retiree and must be backed by compelling and legally sustainable reasons.

The direction to consider including a live-in partner and children for family pension and healthcare benefits is particularly notable in the context of changing social realities. While Indian service rules have traditionally been framed around conventional notions of marriage and family, courts in recent years have increasingly acknowledged long-term live-in relationships for various legal purposes, including maintenance, inheritance, and protection from abuse.

Although the High Court stopped short of mandating automatic inclusion, its directive requires the Centre to actively consider the petitioner’s plea in a fair and reasoned manner, taking into account the longevity and transparency of the relationship.

Legal observers say the ruling could have broader implications for similarly placed government employees, especially those who have lived in long-term relationships outside formal marriage but have been open about their circumstances. It reinforces the principle that administrative authorities must adapt their interpretations of service rules to contemporary realities while respecting individual dignity and constitutional values.

For the petitioner, the judgment brings long-awaited relief after years of litigation. With the restoration of his withheld pension and gratuity, along with interest, and the possibility of securing family pension and healthcare benefits for his partner and children, the ruling marks a decisive correction of what the court found to be an unjust and disproportionate administrative response.

The case stands as a reminder that transparency and honesty in service records matter, and that personal choices, when openly disclosed and not tainted by fraud, cannot be automatically equated with misconduct deserving of lifelong financial penalties.