IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2594-CAT of 2011 Date of Decision : April 27, 2011 Bishna Devi ....Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Joshi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition filed by the widow of late Sarup Singh is directed against order dated 8.9.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench holding that she was not entitled to any compassionate appointment because her husband was not being paid out of the Government funds and, therefore, he was not a Government employee. The Tribunal has also recorded the finding that her husband was being paid out of the contributions made by the CWP No. 2594-CAT of 2011 -2- Resident Officers and Mess Officers for running of the Mess and was an employee of an independent organisation funded by the officers out of their own funds. The organisation was being run on 'no profit no loss' basis. 2. Mr. Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, argued that some compassion should have been shown by respondent No.3- Mess Secretary. In reply to the aforesaid argument, Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has pointed out that it is clear from para 4(iii) of the written statement filed by the respondents that her husband has been given financial assistance amounting to Rs.81,100/- on different occasions. In that regard, reference has been made to letter dated 8.3.2011 (A-2). 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that once the husband of the petitioner was not a Government employee, no case for compassionate appointment would be made out. He was working as a Cook/Masalchi for Officers, who have created a group by contributing some fund and was being paid from that fund. There is, thus, no merit in the petition, which is dismissed. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S.MANN ) CWP No. 2594-CAT of 2011 -3- April 27, 2011 JUDGE ajay-I