Pension is a valuable right protected under Article 300A of the Constitution, and cannot be denied without due process. Recovery from a deceased employee's benefits is unlawful without established liability.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a widow, who was about 50 years of age at the time of filing of petition in the year 2020. This is a second round of litigation by the petitioner for seeking the retiral benefits pertaining to her late husband which is not only a Statutory Right but also a Constitutional Right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India which provides that no person shall be deprived of his property except by the authority of law. Right to property has also been held to be a Human Right by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Factual Matrix:-

2. The facts of the present case are that the husband of the petitioner was working as an Accountant from the year 1980 in the Haryana State Federation of Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. (CONFED) (hereinafter referred to as 'CONFED'). He retired on 31.08.2015 after attaining the age of superannuation vide Annexure P-3. In the aforesaid order of superannuation, it was also ordered that his retiral dues will be released after finalization of the pending proceedings. Unfortunately, he died on 22.03.2017.

3. While the husband of the petitioner was in service, a charge-sheet dated 03.12.2012 (Annexure P-1) was issued against him with an allegation of shortfall due to less moisture gain. Thereafter, second charge-sheet dated 09.01.2013 (Annexure P-2) was served upon the husband of the petitioner with a similar kind of allegation pertaining to less moisture gain in the stocks. In both the charge-sheets no Enquiry Officer was appointed and after the issuance of charge-sheets, no progress had taken place till the time of the death of the husband of the petitioner. In this way, disciplinary proceedings after the issuance of the charge-sheet did not continue at all till the death of the husband of the petitioner. After the retirement of the husband of the petitioner, he was served with third charge-sheet dated 21.03.2016 (Annexure P-4) with an allegation of similar nature with regard to less moisture gain in the stocks. However, before the proceedings could commence in the third charge-sheet which was issued after the retirement of the husband of the petitioner, the husband of the petitioner died on 22.03.2017. In the aforesaid third charge-sheet, the allegations were pertaining to crop year of 2011-2012 and the allegations were that during the aforesaid crop year of 2011-2012, there was less gain delivered by the concerned various purchase of Mandis for which the husband of the petitioner was alleged to be responsible for 20% share of total amount of less gain. However, after the issuance of charge-sheet, even after the retirement of the husband of the petitioner the proceedings did not commence.

4. During the life time of the husband of the petitioner and after his retirement, he gave representations (Annexure P-5(Colly)) to the Managing Director of CONFED that his retiral benefits have been withheld and he is unwell and he is taking treatment from Fortis Hospital, Mohali and he needs money and the same may be released at the earliest but none of the retiral benefits was released to the husband of the petitioner. He also stated in the aforesaid representation dated 29.08.2016 that due to renal failure, he remains ill and is getting treatment from Fortis Hospital, Mohali and his retiral dues may be released. After the death of the husband of the petitioner on 22.03.2017, the present petitioner who is his widow again represented to the Managing Director on 06.04.2017 vide Annexure P-7 that her husband has expired after suffering from prolonged illness and his treatment was going on from Fortis Hospital, Mohali and about 20-25 lacs rupees have been spent on his treatment and retiral dues of her husband may be released. Thereafter, she again filed a representation vide Annexure P-8 to the Managing Director by elaborating that her husband was suffering from renal failure and she is