Heat wave: over 100 deaths on Saturday alone across A.P.

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.

Lucknow, Jul 24: A special CBI court on Friday recorded the statement of veteran BJP leader LK Advani in the Babri mosque demolition case.

The statement of the 92-year-old former deputy prime minster was recorded through video conferencing in the court of special Judge S K Yadav.

On Thursday, the court recorded the statement of BJP veteran Murli Manohar Joshi in the case. 

New Delhi, Jul 24: The Delhi High Court on Friday asked the ICMR to come out with a clarification that mobile number, government-issued identity card, photographs or even a residential proof ought not to be insisted upon for Covid-19 test of mentally ill homeless persons.

According to an Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) advisory of June 19, every person who was to be tested for Covid-19 has to provide a government-issued identity proof and should have a valid phone number for tracing and tracking the individual and his/her contacts.

A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan said that ICMR should issue a clarification by way of a circular or an official order that the identity proof, address proof and mobile number are not required for testing mentally ill homeless persons.

The high court said a camp can be organised for testing such persons as is being done across Delhi for others.

"Guidelines have to be given by you (ICMR). You put it in black and white for the states'' benefit. You only need to clarify in two-three lines that mobile number, address proof and identity cards are not required for testing mentally ill homeless persons," it said.

"Use your powers for the public at large. Once you do so (issue the clarification), all states will comply," the bench added.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for ICMR, sought time to take instructions from the government regarding the observations made by the bench.

The high court, thereafter, listed the matter for further hearing on August 7.

The bench was hearing a PIL moved by advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal seeking directions to ICMR and Delhi government to issue guidelines for Covid-19 testing of mentally ill homeless persons in the national capital.

Coronavirus India update: State-wise total number of confirmed cases, deaths on July 24

The high court on July 9 had asked the ICMR to consider the plight of the mentally ill homeless persons and see whether they can be tested without insisting upon a mobile number, government issue identity card and residential address proof.

The bench had said to ICMR that many homeless mentally ill persons are institutionalised or in shelter homes and therefore, traceable, so there was no need for their identity proof or phone numbers to test them for Covid-19.

In response to the court''s query, ICMR has filed an affidavit stating that the purpose behind the submission of government identity card and telephone number was to ensure proper tracking and treatment of positive cases and their contacts as ''Test/Track/Treat'' is the best strategy for control of Covid-19 pandemic. 

It further said that since health was a state subject, the concerned state health authority may consider adopting a suitable protocol to ensure that the strategy of ''Test/Track/Treat'' is followed and the grievance raised in the PIL is also addressed.

ICMR, in its affidavit, has said that it has only advised facilitating contact tracing as well as tracking of the Covid-19 infected patients.

"The modalities regarding the contact tracing as well as tracking of the Covid-19 infected patients completely falls under the domain of IDSP. NCDC and state health authorities. 

"ICMR is a research organization and the contact tracing, as well as tracking of the Covid-19 infected patients, is not under the domain of ICMR," it has said in its affidavit.

Bansal has claimed in his petition that the Delhi government has not taken seriously the lack of guidelines with respect to Covid-19 testing of mentally ill homeless persons.

Coronavirus Worldometer | 15 countries with the highest number of cases, deaths due to the Covid-19 pandemic

He has said the high court had on June 9 directed it to address the grievances raised by him in another PIL with regard to mentally ill homeless persons in accordance with law, rules, regulations and government policy.

He said that on June 13 he also sent a representation to the Chief Secretary of Delhi government for providing treatment to mentally ill homeless persons in the national capital who have no residence proof. 

However, nothing was done by the Delhi government, he had told the court.