Hon'ble VYAS, J.—Instant miscellaneous appeal has been filed u/Sec. 30 of the Workman Compensation Act, 1923 against judgment and award dated 29.03.2008 passed by Commissioner, Workman Compensation, Sriganganagar in Case Number WC 05/2003, by which, compensation of Rs.2,71,138/- has been awarded in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 and further Rs.2,500/- on account of expenses incurred for performing last rites of the deceased were allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents No.1 and 2 filed application for compensation of Rs.5,42,275/- and 50% penalty as well as interest on the amount on account of death of their son Shiv Shankar who was working as Chowkidar at the establishment of the appellant, he died while on duty on 6.8.2000. As per submission of the respondent-applicants, late Shiv Shankar saw two children of the appe-llant school who fell in water tank of the school while playing and in order to save them deceased jumped into the water tank and saved life of both the children from drowning but in the attempt he himself could not come out and lost his life as a result of drowning in the water. 3. Claimant-respondents are parents of deceased Shiv Shankar who was chowkidar of the appellant. The claim application filed by the parents was allowed by the Commissioner, Workman Compensation, Sriganganagar vide judgment and award dated 29.03.2008. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I have perused the impugned award. 5. With a sorry heart, at the threshold, it may be observed that no such appeal was at all required to be filed in this case because admittedly as per facts of the case the deceased employee of the appellant lost his life while on duty in his attempt to save the lives of children of the appellant school. The appellant being employer of the deceased was to take care of the fact that the employee who died while performing duty is entitled for compensation but no compensation was paid to his parents and they were compelled to file application before the Commissioner, Workman Compensation; and, now, after award is passed this appeal is filed, therefore, it can be said that the appellant institution has no regard for basic concept of duty. 6. 6. On merit, in my opinion, no substantial question of law emerges from the facts of the case, therefore, the appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workman Compensation Act, 1923 deserves to be dismissed. 7. In this view of the matter, while upholding the finding of the Commissioner, Workman Compensation, Sriganganagar, instant appeal filed under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 is hereby dismissed.