IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA 1314 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : APRIL 24, 2008 SATINDER KAUR ....... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB ETC. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. DS Brar, Advocate, for the appellant. AJAI LAMBA, J. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent findings of fact. Plaintiff-Satinder Kaur filed a suit for declaration for claiming all service benefits of Amarjit Singh, deceased, including pension, gratuity, G.P.F., G.I.S., leave encashment, etc., as also the right of service on compassionate ground. The defence taken by defendants No.1 and 2 was that respondent-Surinder Kaur was the first married wife of Amarjit Singh and was alive and, therefore, was entitled to the benefits. On 24.10.2005, Dependents' Certificate was issued in favour of Dalip Kaur, Surinder Kaur, RSA 1314 of 2008 2 Kirandeep Kaur, Manseerat Gill and Sukhkaram Gill. Defendant No.3 i.e. Surinder Kaur, took a specific stand that she was the legally wedded wife of Amarjit Singh and was entitled to the service benefits along with her children, in accordance with the rules. The Dependents' Certificate had been issued in favour of the said defendant, her children and mother-in-law. The suit was dismissed. The official defendants, however, were given liberty to consider the case of the plaintiff for employment on compassionate grounds, as per their discretion. Aggrieved by the stipulation given with regard to the discretion of the official defendants to consider the claim of the plaintiff for compassionate appointment, Surinder Kaur (defendant No.3) filed the first appeal. Plaintiff-Satinder Kaur, claiming herself to be the widow of Amarjit Singh, also filed an appeal with regard to her claim for the benefits, as claimed in the civil suit. The first appellate Court has considered the issue in paras 10 to 13 of the judgment. It has been held that there was no evidence to the effect that the plaintiff was the legally married wife of Amarjit Singh or any evidence to the effect that the marriage between Surinder Kaur (defendant No.3) and Amarjit Singh had ever been dissolved so as to categorize the marriage of the plaintiff with Amarjit Singh as legal. In such circumstances, the marriage of the plaintiff with Amarjit Singh was held to be void, which dis-entitled her to any pensionary benefits after the death of Amarjit Singh. In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. RSA 1314 of 2008 3 Learned counsel for the appellant has only contended in this regard that the children of the appellant would be entitled to the benefits. Non-impleading of the children and simply because such a claim in the civil suit had not been made by the appellant on behalf of the children, being a mere technicality, ought to be ignored and the claim of the appellant should be allowed. The facts that have not been pleaded and asserted, cannot be considered at this stage of second appeal. In this view of the matter, the argument has to be rejected. With regard to the claim of the appellant to compassionate appointment on account of death of Amarjit Singh, it has been held that in case such a job is to be given to appellant-Satinder Kaur, it should not be considered that Satinder Kaur was widow of Amarjit Singh and, in no manner, should cause prejudice, loss or division of pensionary benefits to the legally wedded wife of Amarjit Singh; namely, Surinder Kaur. No fault can be traced in this finding. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show from any rule, regulation or law that the appellant is, in any way, entitled to the claim made in the civil suit. Learned counsel has further not been able to point out any evidence that has been perversely read or material that has been ignored while returning the findings against the appellant. Reference to Vidhyadhari and others v. Sukhrana Bai and others, (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 238, would be dehors the controversy because in the cited case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was dealing with an application filed for grant of Succession Certificate RSA 1314 of 2008 4 on behalf of the children as well as by second wife-Vidhyadhari, during the subsistence of the earlier marriage. Thus, the children from the second marriage alliance had claimed their right to the share in their father's employment dues. It would also be relevant to notice that Vidhyadhari was also the nominee of the deceased. As against this, in the present case, appellant-Satinder Kaur seeks the employment dues of Amarjit Singh, deceased, as also service on compassionate ground, for herself, which claim cannot be allowed. The case is, therefore, clearly distinguishable. In view of the fact that the appellant having contracted a void marriage and is not entitled to the claim made by her, no ground for interference is made out. In view of the above, no substantial question of law, as raised in para-10 of the grounds of appeal, arises for consideration. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. April 24, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE