Lyricist Gulzar to be honoured with Dada Saheb Phalke award

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.

New Delhi, Jan 15: The mother of 23-year-old paramedic student, who was raped and brutally assaulted by six men in December 2012, on Tuesday said she knew that the curative petitions of the convicts will be rejected and is confident that they will be hanged on January 22.

Her remarks came after the Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to stay the execution of two of the four death row convicts in the 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case while dismissing their curative petitions against their conviction and capital punishment.

"The curative please had to be rejected. This was the third time they had gone to the Supreme Court. Whatever pleas they file, we are ready to face them and we will fight it out. We feel that they will be hanged on January 22. We want that to happen," Nirbhaya's mother told PTI over phone.

The four convicts -- Vinay Sharma (26), Mukesh Kumar (32), Akshay Kumar Singh (31) and Pawan Gupta (25) -- are to be hanged on January 22 at 7 am in Tihar jail as a Delhi court issued their death warrants on January 7.

Vinay and Mukesh had filed curative petitions on January 9.

Shortly after the apex court refused to stay the execution of two of them, Mukesh moved a mercy petition before President Ram Nath Kovind.

Mukesh also approached the Delhi High Court for quashing the death warrant. The high court is expected to take up his petition on Wednesday.

Mumbai, Jan 19: After Kerala and Punjab, the Maha Vikas Agadi (MVA) government is also mulling over a resolution against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 in Maharashtra Assembly.

Speaking to news agency, Congress spokesperson Raju Waghmare said: "Our senior party leader Balasaheb Thorat has also shared his stand on the CAA. Even Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray has said that we are against the CAA. As far as the resolution against CAA is concerned, our senior leaders of MVA will sit together and decide."

If this happens, then Maharashtra will be the third state to pass a resolution against CAA, which grants citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, who came to India on or before December 31, 2014.

Emphasising that CAA is 'unconstitutional,' senior lawyer and Congress leader Kapil Sibal has said that every state Assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek CAA's withdrawal.

He added that it would be problematic to oppose the CAA if the law is declared to be 'constitutional' by the Supreme Court.

"I believe the CAA is unconstitutional. Every State Assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek its withdrawal. When and if the law is declared to be constitutional by the Supreme Court then it will be problematic to oppose it. The fight must go on!" Sibal tweeted.

Earlier speaking at the Kerala Literature Festival on Saturday, the Congress leader had said that constitutionally no state can say that it will not implement the amended Citizenship Act, as doing so will be "unconstitutional".

Kerala government has also approached the Supreme Court against the CAA following the passage of a resolution against it in the state Assembly.

Punjab chief minister Amarinder Singh has also announced that the Congress state government is going to join Kerala in the Supreme Court in the case.