Lynching incidents shouldn't be politicised or given communal colour: Naqvi

New Delhi, May 7: Food ordering and delivery platform Swiggy on Thursday said its co-founder and CTO Rahul Jaimini will move away from active role in the company during the month to pursue another entrepreneurial venture.

Jaimini will be joining Pesto Tech, a career accelerator start-up, as their co-founder, Swiggy said in a statement.

He will continue to be a shareholder and board member of Swiggy, it added.

Functions currently led by Rahul, including platform engineering, analytics, IT and labs, will be realigned to Dale Vaz, Head of Engineering and Data Science, who has been with the company for close to two years, the statement said.

"Technology was crucial to what we set out to build when we started Swiggy. Nandan (Reddy) and I could not have asked for a better partner to handle this aspect of the company," Swiggy co-founder and CEO Sriharsha Majety said.

It was Rahul's immense passion to 'build for the billions' that drove technological innovations that set Swiggy apart as we grew phenomenally over the years, he added.

"Working with technology that has large scale impact is what excites me, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to do just this at Swiggy and grow tremendously over the years," Jaimini said.

New Delhi, Jul 16: A group of 174 Indian nationals, including seven minors, has filed a lawsuit against the recent presidential proclamation on H-1B that would prevent them from entering the United States or a visa would not be issued to them.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson at the US District Court in the District of Columbia issued summonses on Wednesday to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad F Wolf, along with Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia.

The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court on Tuesday.

"The proclamation 10052's H-1B/H-4 visa ban hurts the United States' economy, separates families and defies the Congress. While the two former points render it unseemly, the latter point renders it unlawful," said the lawsuit filed by lawyer Wasden Banias on behalf of the 174 Indian nationals.

The lawsuit seeks an order declaring the presidential proclamation restriction on issuing new H-1B or H4 visas or admitting new H-1B or H-4 visa holders as unlawful. It also urges the court to compel the Department of State to issue decisions on pending requests for H-1B and H-4 visas.

In his presidential proclamation on June 22, Trump temporarily suspended issuing of H-1B work visas till the end of the year.

"In the administration of our nation's immigration system, we must remain mindful of the impact of foreign workers on the United States labor market, particularly in the current extraordinary environment of high domestic unemployment and depressed demand for labor," said the proclamation issued by Trump.

In his proclamation, Trump said the overall unemployment rate in the United States nearly quadrupled between February and May of 2020 -- producing some of the most extreme unemployment ever recorded by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

While the May rate of 13.3 per cent reflects a marked decline from April, millions of Americans remain out of work.

The proclamation also extends till year-end his previous executive order that had banned issuance of new green cards of lawful permanent residency. Green Card holders, once admitted pursuant to immigrant visas, are granted "open-market" employment authorisation documents, allowing them immediate eligibility to compete for almost any job in any sector of the economy, Trump said.

Forbes, which first reported the lawsuit filed by the Indian nationals, said the complaint points out that the Congress specified the rules under which H-1B visa holders could work in the US and balanced the interests of US workers and employers.

"The complaint seeks to protect H-1B professionals, including those who have passed the labor certification process and possess approved immigrant petitions. Such individuals are waiting for their priority date to obtain permanent residence, a wait that can take many years for Indian nationals," Forbes reported.

Meanwhile, several lawmakers urged Scalia on Tuesday to reverse the work visa ban.

"Throughout this administration, the president has continued to lament the alleged abuses of the immigration system while failing to address the systemic problems that have persisted and allowed businesses and employers to exploit and underpay immigrant workers, guest workers and American workers," the lawmakers wrote.

"This misguided attempt by the president to scapegoat immigrants for policy failures during the pandemic not only serves to hurt immigrants, but dismisses the true problem of a broken work visa program that is in desperate need of reform," said the letter, which among others was signed by Congressmen Joaquin Castro, Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; Bobby Scott, Chair of the Education and Labor Committee; Karen Bass, Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus; Judy Chu, Ra l Grijalva, Vicente Gonzalez, Yvette Clarke and Linda S nchez.

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.