IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 678 of 2008. Date of decision: 20.8.2010. Smt. Pushpa Devi ….. Appellant. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. N.K.Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. B.C.Verma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This appeal is directed against the judgement, decree dated 12.11.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Shimla camp at Rohru in Civil Appeal No. 58-R/13 of 2005 affirming the judgement, decree dated 24.10.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 1, Rohru in Civil Suit No. 85/1 of 2004. 2. The appellant had filed a suit for declaration that she be declared legally wedded wife of deceased Devinder Singh and is entitled to service and pensionary benefits of Devinder Singh. The respondents No. 1 to 3 be restrained from releasing the service and pensionary benefits of deceased Devinder Singh to respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 4 be restrained from claiming pensionary benefits of Devinder Singh. The service and pensionary benefits of Devinder Singh lying with respondents No. 1 to 3 may be ordered to be released in favour of the appellant. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… 3. The pleaded case of the appellant is that her marriage was solemnized with Devinder Singh in the year 1980. Devinder Singh had worked with respondent No. 1 as Peon and died on 23.12.1996 when he was in service. The respondent No. 4 falsely claimed her to be the widow of deceased Devinder Singh. The respondent No. 4 was not legally wedded wife of deceased Devinder Singh, she is the wife of Hari Singh. The respondent No. 4 is not entitled to any pensionary benefits of deceased Devinder Singh. In June 2004 appellant came to know that respondent No. 1 was releasing part of pensionary benefits to respondent No. 4. In these circumstances, the suit was filed. 4. The suit was contested by respondents No. 1 to 3 by filing joint written statement. The respondents No. 1 to 3 took the objection of maintainability of the suit. They pleaded that part of payment of GPF stood already released and pension case has been prepared in favour of respondent No.4. It has been alleged that the matter is sub-judice and the dispute between the appellant and respondent No. 4 is to be decided by the court. The respondents No. 1 to 3 have prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. The respondent No. 4 has contested the suit by filing written statement. The objection of maintainability of the suit was raised in the written statement besides several other preliminary objections. On merits, it has been denied that appellant married with Devinder Singh in the year 1980 or any other date. It has been alleged that respondent No. 4 is the legally wedded wife of deceased …3… and she is entitled to all service and pensionary benefits of deceased Devinder Singh. 6. The learned Sub Judge under issue No. 1 has held that respondent No. 4 Shyama Devi is the legally wedded wife of deceased Devinder Singh and she is entitled to all service as well as pensionary benefits of deceased Devinder Singh and dismissed the suit on 24.10.1995. The learned Addl. District Judge on 12.11.2008 has upheld the judgement, decree dated 24.10.2005. 7. I have heard Mr. N.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B.C.Verma, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and have also gone through the record. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the courts below have not properly appreciated the material on record. The findings recorded by the courts below regarding the marriage of deceased Devinder Singh are contrary to official record. The person who has been nominated for pensionary benefits of the deceased employee is entitled to pensionary benefits as per nomination. The specific issue of marriage of deceased Devinder Singh was not framed. The learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has supported the impugned judgement, decree and has submitted that no question law much-less substantial question of law arises in the appeal. 8. The question involved in the appeal is regarding the marriage of deceased Devinder Singh. On the basis of material on record, the two courts below have recorded finding of fact that Devinder Singh had solemnized legal marriage with respondent No.4. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that this finding is …4… contrary to official record has no force. The two courts below have recorded the finding on marriage of Devinder Singh after appreciating the material on record. The nominee of the deceased employee for pensionary benefits is only a trustee. Only the legal heirs of the deceased employee are entitled to pensionary benefits. It has not been pointed out at the time of hearing what material evidence has been ignored by the two courts below in recording a finding that deceased Devinder Singh solemnized married with respondent No.4. It is not the case of the appellant that inadmissible evidence has been considered and relied for returning the findings of marriage in favour of respondent No. 4. 9. The objection of the learned counsel for the appellant that specific issue regarding the marriage of Devinder Singh was not framed is noticed only to be rejected. The parties right from the very beginning were aware of the actual dispute between them, which was nothing but regarding legal marriage of Devinder Singh, whether it was with respondent No.4 or with appellant. The parties were aware of the case of other side from the very beginning. The non-framing of issue regarding the marriage of Devinder Singh has caused no prejudice to any party. I have perused the record. No question of law much-less any substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. There is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. August 20, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.