RSA No. 247 of 2011 with RSA No. 248 of 2011 28.9.2011 Present: Mr. G.R Palsara, Advocate, for the appellants, in both appeals. Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2 in RSA No. 247 of 2011 and for respondents No. 1,2 and 5 in RSA No. 248 of 2011. Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate, for respondent(s) No. 3 in both the appeals. Mr. G.R Palsara, Advocate for the appellants fairly states that the appellant is not entitled to the relief prayed for the reasons that original defendant Smt. Gaytri Devi has been proved to be legally wedded wife of late Sh. Tek Ram who was an employee of HPSEB. Also both the Courts below have concurrently held it to be so. As such, there are no merits in the appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration before this Court in these appeals. Mr. G.R Palsara, Advocate for appellants has however invited my attention to decision rendered by Apex Court in Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar, 2000(2) SCC431, to contend that in any event children of the appellant are entitled to receive share in the pension of the deceased father. Children of Smt. Rukmani Devi allegedly born from Tek Ram are not parties before the Court. Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate has also invited my attention to Ex. DW-1/A, to controvert the contention raised by Mr. Palsara. Be that as it may be, the Courts below have not gone into the question of paternity of children of the appellant. As such this Court is not required to go into this aspect and it shall be open for children of Smt. Rukmani Devi allegedly born through Sh. Tek Chand to take recourse to such remedies as are available to them in accordance with law. The appeals stand disposed of. September 28, 2011 (Sanjay Karol),J. (priti)