SANGEETA CHANDRAKAR Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is the order dated 11.03.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (in short, the Tribunal) in Original Application No.203/00603/2014. The petitioner has filed original application before the Tribunal challenging the order dated 31.03.2014 wherein her claim for grant of benefits under the Employee's Family Benefit Scheme (in short, EFBS) was rejected. The ground for rejection of the said claim of the petitioner was on the ground that her husband (since deceased) was not a regular employee of the respondent No.1.

(2.) The relevant facts of the present petition is that, the Husband of the petitioner was appointed as Attendant-cum-Technician (Trainee) vide order dated 12.06.2012 by the respondent No.1. While he was working as trainee, he met with a road accident on 05.01.2014 and succumbed to his injuries leaving behind the petitioner, his widow, and two minor children. On the death of the employee, the petitioner was entitled for certain benefits like payment of life cover scheme amounting to Rs.1,32,000/-, CPF amounting to Rs.32,703/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- under SEWA. The petitioner was initially ordered to open a Bank account also so that the benefits under the EFBS scheme can be paid and deposited in her bank account. However, vide the impugned order, her claim for benefits under EFBS scheme was rejected on the ground that her husband was not a regular employee of the respondent No.1, and therefore, was dis-entitled for the benefits under EFBS scheme.

(3.) The contention of the respondent No.1 was that the Husband of the petitioner was appointed as trainee vide order dated 12.06.2012 and that a trainee would not fall within the definition of regular employee. The training period was of two years and thereafter he would be on probation for a further period of one year and which is also extendable and only on successful completion of probation, his services shall be confirmed with the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 referred to EFBS rules and regulations where the definition of "employee" means a person in the regular pay scale of the company. Since the employee was a trainee, he would not fall within the ambit of a regular employee dis-entitling him for the benefit under the said scheme.