Smt. Shanti Bajpai vs. State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Commercial Tax/G.S.T.Deptt.And Anr

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Shanti Bajpai, filed a writ petition claiming entitlement to family pension following the death of her husband on September 4, 2010. She contended that her grievance would be addressed if her representation for family pension was considered and decided promptly. The respondent, State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary, Commercial Tax/G.S.T. Department, and another, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not object to this request. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh, detailed representation to respondent no. 2, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax/Goods and Services Tax (GST), Lucknow, within two weeks, attaching relevant documents and a copy of the writ petition. Respondent no. 2 was then instructed to decide this representation within two months of receiving it and a certified copy of the court order.

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim for family pension. Instead, it focused on the procedural aspect of her representation. The Court held that the petitioner should be permitted to file a fresh, detailed representation to respondent no. 2, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax/Goods and Services Tax (GST), Lucknow, within two weeks. This representation should include all supporting documents and a copy of the writ petition. Respondent no. 2 is mandated to consider and decide this representation in accordance with the law, issuing a reasoned and speaking order within two months of receiving the representation and a certified copy of the court order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not applied its mind to the merits of the case, leaving all questions open for the competent authority to decide. The operative direction is the consideration and disposal of the petitioner's representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to family pension after the death of her husband on 04.09.2010, and if so, what is the procedure for its grant? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that her claim for family pension is valid and that the resolution of her grievance hinges on the timely consideration and decision of her representation by the competent authority. She sought a direction for a time-bound disposal of her representation. Respondent's Contention: The Standing Counsel for the State had no objection to the petitioner's request for her representation to be considered and decided within a stipulated timeframe. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent regarding the merits of the family pension claim itself, only regarding the procedural aspect of representation disposal.