TN farmers stage protest, demand Cauvery water

New Delhi, Jun 26: Over 700 employees of Hindu Rao Hospital would stage a protest against North Delhi Municipal Corporation on Friday morning over non-payment of their salaries since April. The staff includes paramedical, nurses, and Class IV employees of the hospital. However, the employees said that only 40 or 50 people would gather to stage the protest keeping COVID situation in mind, and the norms of social distancing would also be followed.

Tejinder Singh, president of the Paramedical technical staff welfare association, said that the corporation is forcing the employees to go on a protest when they are needed the most. "The government hails us as Corona warriors but do not treat us like one," he commented.

"We all have families. Many amongst us have taken loans, live on rental accommodation, and have children whose schools and colleges are demanding fees. How would we incur our expenses when we are not paid? We repeatedly asked the corporation to clear our dues, but our requests fell on deaf ears. We don't have any option but to go on protest," he said.

Besides, Singh also said that the staff of Hindu Rao had not received arrears of seventh pay commission, bonus and dearness allowances for two years. "These are our rights which we are being denied. The protest is to call out injustice and ignorance we face from the administration," he added.

The nurses of the hospital corroborated with Singh. However, they also added the issues they are facing since the pandemic started that they would be rising through the protest.

Nurses complain lack of facilities despite hospital gearing up as dedicated COVID care

Indumati Jaiswal, president of nurses' welfare association of the hospital, said that apart from salaries, the hospital is not providing many facilities required by the staff to battle the pandemic. The Delhi government had designated the hospital as a dedicated COVID facility on June 16.

"The preparedness for such responsibility is completely shoddy. There is no provision for air conditioners and coolers for us. We have to work wearing PPE kits for six hours straight under ceiling fans. The lack of AC and coolers amplifies our struggle to stay under PPE kits for longer hours. We can't even drink water in that duration. It's just inhumane," Jaiswal said.

Jaiswal also said that the hospital is facing staff crunch, yet, have not prepared a roster for the nurses. "The hospital has 238 nurses on 700 doctors. This is opposite to the prescribed guidelines of the Indian Nurses Council that suggests four nurses per doctor as a healthy ratio. Here, we have less than five nurses per doctor. A complete opposite of an ideal scenario," she complained.

Jaiswal said that the room for donning and doffing the PPE kits should be outside the ward. "In the hospital, it's within the ward, and the nurses have to cross through the patients to wear in and out the PPE suits. It increases the risk of contracting COVID-19 from the patients," she said.

The hospital employees informed that more than 40 healthcare workers from Hindu Rao had contracted the COVID-19 infection.

The corporation argues lack of funds behind delay in salaries

Indu Singhal, the deputy commissioner of North Delhi Municipal Commissioner, told media corporation is in the process to resolve the salary issues of the Hindu Rao Hospital's staff. "We have received their complaints and pursuing the matter. We will release their dues as soon as we receive the funds from the government," she said.

However, a senior official of the corporation revealed that the corporation is reeling under an acute shortage of funds. "Even the employees working in the corporation have not been paid salaries. The employees of A-grade are not paid since March," the official said.

Singhal said that the dispersion of salaries starts from the lower base. "Many officers, including I have not been paid," she added.

Rajghat, Feb 23: The maternal uncle of Dr Kafeel Khan, who was recently arrested for allegedly making inflammatory statements during anti-CAA protests, was shot dead in front of his house at Bankatichak in Rajghat area, police said on Sunday.

Dr Nusratullah Warsi aka Dada (55), a property dealer, was shot dead on Saturday night at about 10:45 pm and an FIR against two people was filed in this connection on a written complaint of his family members.

According to police, it appears to be a case of murder due to monetary and property dispute and they are searching for both the accused.

Dr Kafeel Khan, suspended doctor of Gorakhpur BRD Medical College, was last month arrested under charges of giving a provocative speech during a protest against the CAA and NRC at Aligarh Muslim University and was later charged with the National Security Act.

Warsi on Saturday evening had gone to his lawyer Siraj Tariq's house, a few metres away from his own house, and was returning home on foot when a man shot him in his head, killing him on the spot.

"On the written complaint of family members, case of murder against one Imammuddin and Anil Sonkar has been registered and police has initiated probe and is searching for both the accused. Police met the women in their house and is interrogating them," Circle Officer VP Singh said.

Prima facie it appears to be a case of property and money dispute, he said, adding, three teams have been constituted to investigate the case and soon the accused will be caught.

Dr Kafeel Khan had last month raised apprehension in a Mumbai court about being killed in an "encounter" by the Uttar Pradesh police after claiming that he had been "falsely" implicated in the case by them.

The paediatrician had come to the limelight in 2017 when a controversy broke out after the death of over 60 children in less than a week at the BRD Medical College in Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh, where he was posted.

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.