HC asks police to file status report on Safoora Zargar's bail plea in UAPA case

Mar 2: Two more positive cases of the novel coronavirus -- one in Delhi and another in Telangana -were reported, the Union Health Ministry said on Monday.

The person from Delhi had travelled to Italy, it said adding he is being diagnosed at RML hospital.

The other person with the coronavirus infection has a travel history to Dubai, the ministry added.

"Both the patients are stable and being closely monitored," the ministry said.

Sunitha Krishnan is the name of the patient from Telangana and she is a social activist.

Krishnan has tweeted, "So going to enjoy hospitality at Gandhi Hospital for two days as admitted in the isolation ward suspected coronavirus. They have not started the tests yet( 1.30 hrs since I arrived).I believe the results make take 48hrs. At this pace, I have a feeling I am might be here sometime."

New Delhi, Jan 11: Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram on Friday said that he has never seen innocents like the Indian people, who believe the claims made by the government on the implementation of its programmes. The former Union Minister, addressing a literary event, said, "I have never seen innocents like the Indian people. If something appears on print (and named two newspapers also), we believe it. We believe anything."

Claims like all villages having been electrified in the country and toilets built for 99 per cent of families in India were being believed, he said.

Similar was the case of the Ayushman Bharat scheme, (Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana or PM-JAY is a flagship health care scheme of the Centre), he alleged.

Stating that his Delhi-based driver's father had to get a surgery done under the scheme, he said, however, it could not be performed.

"I asked him (car driver) if he had the Ayushman card and he showed a card and I told him to take it (to hospital). In hospital after hospital, they said they were not aware of anything like that (Ayushman scheme). But we believe that the Ayushman scheme has come to the whole of India," he said.

Further, he said "we believe that for any disease, treatment will be done (indicating the Ayushman scheme) without shelling out money. We are being innocents."

Many news items and data were contrary to the truth, he added.

Chennai, Mar 3: The Madras High Court has ruled that if a working woman gives birth to a child in the second delivery after twins in the first, she is not entitled to maternity benefits as it should be treated as third child.

"As per existing rules, a woman can avail such benefits only for her first two deliveries. Even otherwise it is debatable as to whether the delivery is not a second delivery but a third one, in as much as ordinarily when twins are born they are delivered one after another, and their age and their inter-se elderly status is also determined by virtue of the gap of time between their arrivals, which amounts to two deliveries and not one simultaneous act," the court said.

The first bench, comprising Chief Justice A P Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad stated this while allowing the appeal from Ministry of Home Affairs.

It set aside the order June 18 2019 order of a single Judge, who extended 180 days of maternity leave and other benefits to a woman member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the rules governing the Tamil Nadu government servants.

The issue pertains to an appeal moved by the ministry, which contended that the leave claim is by a member of CISF to whom the maternity rules of Tamil Nadu would not apply.

She would be covered by the maternity benefits as provided under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, the ministry said.

When the appeal came up for hearing, the bench said it found that a second delivery, which, in the present case, resulted in a third child, cannot be interpreted so as to add to the mathematical precision that is defined in the rules.

The admissibility of benefits would be limited if the claimant has not more than two children, the bench said "This fact therefore changes the entire nature of the relief which is sought for by the woman petitioner, which aspect has been completely overlooked by the single judge", the bench said.