‘Brother not married, so sister has come’: Amit Shah on Congress ‘dynasty’

Chennai, Jun 10: DMK MLA J Anbazhagan who had tested positive for coronavirus and was on ventilator support from June 3 passed away at a hospital in Chennai on Wednesday.

Coincidently, today is the 62nd birthday of the MLA.

"Anbazhagan J, who has been fighting for his life with severe COVID 19 pneumonia rapidly deteriorated early this morning. In spite of full medical support including mechanical ventilation at our COVID facility, he succumbed to his illness. He was declared dead at 08:05 hours on the 10th of June 2020," the hospital said in a statement.

In 2001, Anbazhagan was elected from T Nagar Assembly constituency. He served for five years.

Later in 2011, he was elected to Tamil Nadu Assembly from Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni seat. The DMK leader was re-elected from the same constituency in 2016.

New Delhi, May 13: Vice President M. Venkaiah Naidu on Wednesday said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi's announcement of Rs 20 lakh crore stimulus package "will go a long way in overcoming challenges" posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

"Welcome the Rs. 20 lakh crore stimulus package announced by the Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Bhai Modi Ji to revive economy, boost efficiency of various sectors through reforms & make India self reliant and resilient. #AtmaNirbharBharatAbhiyan," the Vice President tweeted.

Calling the reforms as the "need of the hour", he further said: "Bold reforms are the need of the hour to realize the dream of #AtmanirbharBharat."

Expressing confidence in the five-pillar approach, he said that it would help promote local industries "while making India face global competition effectively".

"I am confident that a focused approach on the five pillars- Economy, Infrastructure, Technology driven System, Vibrant Demography & Demand--will promote local industries led growth while making India face global competition effectively. #AtmaNirbharBharatAbhiyan," he said.

"I am certain this timely economic package will go long way in overcoming challenges posed by the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. #AtmaNirbharBharatAbhiyan #IndiaFightsCorona," he wrote on the micro-blogging site.

The Prime Minister had on Tuesday announced Rs 20 lakh crore special economic package for the country to become 'self-reliant' and deal with COVID-19.

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.