NEWS TODAY 11.01.2025

 

Pongal exodus begins; over 12L to leave city

Pongal exodus begins; over 12L to leave city 

Staggered Travel Plans To Reduce Jams 

Ram.Sundaram@timesofindia.com  11.01.2025

Chennai : The Pongal exodus began on Friday, with more than 12 lakh people expected to leave the city over the next four days using 14,100 govt buses, 370 trains, 8,000 private bus trips and private cars. The govt’s declaration of Jan 17 as a holiday created an extended nine-day break for state employees, if they take leave on Jan 13. Many already left for their native places on Friday evening. Similarly, parents waiting for schools to close will travel on Saturday, while Monday is expected to see another spike in demand as private companies close for three days, said R Mohan, managing director of State Express Transport Corporation (SETC). For the first time, temporary bus stops at KK Nagar and Poonamallee have been removed, with the Kilambakkam MTC bus stand designated for trips to nearby districts. Unlike previous years, when departures were concentrated within 24 hours, this staggered travel may reduce peak jams, but traffic woes are likely to persist. Private car users are advised to take the Thirukalukundram route to avoid GST Road congestion. Combined with highway patrols, these measures are expected to improve traffic flow on the critical Tambaram-Chengalpet stretch, a key route for vehicles heading to Madurai, Trichy, Coimbatore and Salem. Ticket prices surged across all modes of transport. For instance, a one-way trip to Coimbatore on an airconditioned private sleeper bus cost ₹5,000 on Friday and Monday nights. Some operators are demanding the full fare even if passengers want to alight midway. For examp le, a Trivandrum-bound bus charges ₹3,000 whether passengers get down in Trichy or travel to the final destination, said AAnbalagan, president of the all omni bus owners association. “We have been meeting operators and asking them to follow this method. People cannot expect us to charge normal fares seen during regular weekdays, when buses to Coimbatore run at ₹600 per head. The permanent solution would be for the govt to regulate fares during such seasons,” Anbalagan said. However, the state conducted only some checks and made promises of action based on complaints.

Termination Of Employee For A Single Clerical Mistake In Entire Service Career 'Excessive', Minor Penalty Could Be Imposed: MP High Court

Termination Of Employee For A Single Clerical Mistake In Entire Service Career 'Excessive', Minor Penalty Could Be Imposed: MP High Court

Anukriti Mishra

10 Jan 2025 10:37 AM

While dismissing the State's appeal against an order for payment of back wages to a terminated employee, the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court opined that termination of an employee based on a singular clerical mistake in entire service career seems to be 'excessive' and minor penalty could have been imposed.

Thus, the court directed the State to pay 50% back wages to the said employee.

The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Gajendra Singh observed,

“For the singular negligence in entire service career of the writ petitioner the harsh punishment of termination from service was imposed by the Collector that too, without giving any show cause notice and without conducting any inquiry, therefore the Writ Court rightly found that the order is stigmatic and punishment of termination has been imposed, without giving any opportunity of hearing, hence unsustainable.”

The appeal was preferred against an order dated 17 August 2024 which allowed petitioner's challenge to his termination back in 2017.

During the hearing on Wednesday (January 8), the Deputy Advocate General submitted that the challenge is confined to second part of the order whereby 50% bank wages have been granted to the petitioner.

The Court orally pointed that based on the honorarium being received by the terminated employee, not a very huge amount of back wages would become due.

The DAG submitted that the question is not related only to a single person and that they have been facing similar issues in multiple cases.

The court however responded, “Baki cases jab aenge tab dekha jaega… (We will see when other cases come)”

The DAG then submitted that the Petitioner in this case had not pleaded that she is unemployed, which is necessary to seek back wages from the previous employer. It was submitted, “As a matter of policy, the honourable apex court has said that if she has not pleaded in respect of that she was not in a gainful employment, she is not entitled to get the back wages then."

On the point of the termination, the DAG submitted that State government can proceed against the petitioner afresh, in accordance with the law. "The misappropriation made by the petitioner is still not adjudicated. So we have the liberty is issue a afresh notice and conduct an inquiry. This aspect has not been considered the impugned order…”

Irked, the bench court said, “Ye chiz court ko batane ki zarurat thi kya? Ye toh aapko Day 1 se pata hai ki principle of natural justice, inquiry and everything…ye aapko kar lena tha. (Was there a need to tell this thing to the court? You know this from Day 1 that you have to follow principle of natural justice, inquiry and everything.)”

It continued, “You read the termination order. Whether it is a singular act that warrants termination? She is in service since 2008. Singular mistake happened in 8-9 years of service. It was a clerical mistake of mentioning a beneficiary's name at two places. Based on this you passed a termination order. There is no financial allegation or allegation of misappropriation. One mistake in entire service career, you have taken so seriously…Collector terminated and then Commissioner approved it…there is no allegation that she deliberately had some financial”

The counsel sought to submit that termination was based on the employee's negligent conduct. However, the Court orally remarked that the employer could have resorted to minor punishments.

"There is no termination in this. You give minor punishments/penalties for regular employees and direct termination for contractual ones? You could have warned her. You say she should submit on affidavit stating that she is not gainfully employed. So how will anyone run their house? I don't understand this strange logic that someone should starve but if they are employed, then they won't get back wages.”

The court thereafter dictated its order noting that appellants are challenging the order only in respect of payment of pay of 50% back wages and as far as the issue of termination was concerned, liberty had already been granted to proceed against the respondent, afresh, in accordance with the law.

In its order, court stated, “…when the Writ Court has found that the order of termination is illegal and the petitioner is liable to be taken back hence backwages @ 50% has rightly been directed to be paid to her. So far as gainfully employed is concerned, naturally after termination for the survival of livelihood any terminated employee would earn for himself/herself and for his/her family members and that cannot be the basis for denial for backwages, specially when the order of termination was found to be illegal.”

The court, hence, dismissed the present appeal.

Case Title: The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others Versus Smt. Hemlata Tala, Writ Appeal No. 3111 Of 2024

Law Students Approach Supreme Court Against BCI Directions For Criminal Background Checks, Biometric Attendance, CCTV Surveillance

Law Students Approach Supreme Court Against BCI Directions For Criminal Background Checks, Biometric Attendance, CCTV Surveillance

Debby Jain

10 Jan 2025 7:03 PM

The Supreme Court today issued notice on two public interest litigations filed against two circulars issued by Bar Council of India in September, 2024, which mandated that criminal background check, declaration of simultaneous degree or employment and compliance with attendance norms before enrolling of candidates for legal education or practice.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the Bar Council of India on the petition filed by Prakruthi Jain and Keyur Akkiraju, final year law students of the NALSAR University, who appeared as parties-in-person.

To recap, on September 24, 2024, BCI issued a circular to all Universities/Law Colleges/Centers of Legal Education mandatorily requiring them to implement a Criminal Background Check System, to install a Biometric Attendance System and to install CCTV cameras in classrooms and other keys areas of the institutions.

On September 25, 2024, BCI wrote to all State Bar Councils mandating that criminal background verification must be done before enrolling advocates and declarations must be obtained from them regarding degree and job.

Aggrieved by these circulars, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court contending that the circulars issued by BCI "in the garb of upholding the ethical standards of the legal profession" were without jurisdiction.

The petitioners argue that the directions in the circulars were inconsistent with the values of a free and democratic society as they infringe upon the freedom of speech and expression in 'university spaces', the personal liberty of the students and educators alike, as well as the right to privacy.

In terms of the circulars, Centres of Legal Educations (CLE) are required to conduct a "thorough criminal background check" on each student before issuing final marksheets and degrees. Law students, on their part, are required to declare any ongoing FIR, criminal case, conviction, or acquittal. Any involvement in criminal cases must be reported to BCI, and CLEs must await the BCI's decision before issuing final marksheets or degrees. The petitioner contends that this violates Article 14 of the Constitution as it does not entail a reasonable classification of the categories of declarations to be made.

"The failure to classify and differentiate between 'ongoing FIR, criminal case, conviction, or acquittal' does not meet the reasonable classification test. Further, there is no rational nexus between the aim sought to be achieved, i.e., 'to uphold the ethical standards of the legal profession' and the mandatory implementation of the Criminal Background Check System, pertinently, the requirement of disclosing even acquittals."

Insofar as the circulars empower BCI to initiate strict disciplinary action against law students as also CLEs, including the withholding of final marksheet and degree on account of failure to disclose information, the petitioner highlights that no policy has been formulated so as to guide the BCIs decision-making process, making the impugned provision "extremely vague, overbroad, arbitrary, and hence, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution".

So far as the direction for installation of CCTV cameras, the petitioner asserts that such surveillance would have a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of speech (guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution) in CLEs which are considered political spaces. Further, it would lead to students and lecturers engaging in self-censorship in face of uncertain consequences.

As regards the biometric system of attendance, the petitioner claims that biometric data forms 'personal data' of a person, unauthorized use/access to which would be violative of right to privacy. Further, it is stated that the mandatory collection of biometric data is non-consensual and does not give choice of 'opting out'. "Respondent has not put in place any adequate safeguards against data leak, possible secondary use, misuse by private parties etc.", says the petition.

The second circular issued by the BCI (with directions to the State Bar Councils) is challenged on the ground of violation of Article 19(1)(g) contending that the BCI has "imposed unreasonable restrictions in an arbitrary manner upon the exercise of freedom of profession protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India"

Case Title: PRAKRUTHI JAIN v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, Diary No.47760/2024 (and connected case)

Medical Assessment & Rating Board Has Power Under National Medical Commission Act To Shift Students To Other Colleges: Telangana HC

Medical Assessment & Rating Board Has Power Under National Medical Commission Act To Shift Students To Other Colleges: Telangana HC

Siddhi Nigam

10 Jan 2025 9:58 AM

Upholding an order of Medical Assessment and Rating Board for shifting students from two medical colleges to other institutes as the former did not meet the required standards, the Telangana High Court said that the National Medical Commission Act grants the board the power to transfer students from one institute to another.

The court was hearing a batch of several petitions–moved by two medical colleges as well as various students, challenging the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) decision which withdrew the permission granted to the institutions for admission of students. The pleas also questioned the validity of the action of the official respondents in shifting the students to other medical colleges in the State and had sought a direction that the students be shifted back to the two institutes.

A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao upheld the actions of MARB and analysed the provisions of the National Medical Commission Act, stating that the body has the power to stop admissions and suggest the withdrawal of recognition if the institution fails to meet the minimum standards. The court stated that this power is derived from Section 26 of the Act, which pertains to Powers and functions of Medical Assessment and Rating Board. It said:

“From a scrutiny of Section 26(1)(f) of the 2019 Act, it is evident that the 2019 Act authorises the MARB to take such measures, including issuing warning, imposition of monetary penalty, reducing intake or stoppage of admissions and recommending to the Commission for withdrawal of recognition, against a medical institution for failure to maintain the minimum essential standards specified by the Under Graduate Medical Education Board or the Post Graduate Medical Education Board, as the case may be, in accordance with the regulations made under the 2019 Act. The power conferred under Section 26(1)(f) of the 2019 Act is an inclusive power and therefore, the same is an extensive power.”

The court interpreted the provisions and discussed that the term 'measures' which can be taken by MARB have a wide connotation attached to it and it shall include the power to transfer the students from one institution to other. The petitioner had argued that MARB has power to stop admission of students only and has no power to transfer the students. It said:

“The aforesaid power is inclusive in nature. Therefore, after the expression “measures”, the comma has been used. The expression “measures” is wide enough to include power to transfer the students. Therefore, under Section 26(1)(f) of the 2019 Act, the MARB has power to transfer the students from one institution to other institution…Therefore, the contention that the MARB is denuded of the power to transfer the students, is misconceived and does not deserve acceptance”

The court further deliberated that the MARB has "withdrawn the permission for admission of the students to the institutions" but has "not withdrawn the recognition granted to the institutions". Therefore, the argument that the MARB did not have power to withdraw the permission for admission of the students is misconceived, the court underscored.

It also said that in exercise of its powers under the Act, the National Medical Commission has framed 2023 Regulations, which do not have any retrospective application do not apply to the fact situation of the case. Therefore, the contention that under the Regulations, the MARB has no power to transfer the students is misconceived, the court added.

The Court concluded that no relief shall be granted to the institutions and the students admitted to the institutions are already continuing with their studies in 13 different medical colleges situated in the State of Telangana since September 7, 2022. The court noted that the students have completed two years three months of MBBS course in institutions to which they have been reallocated.

"Out of 300 students, only 60 students have come forward seeking their transfer back to TRR Institute of Medical Sciences and the Mahavir Institute of Medical Sciences. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have failed to implead the 13 medical colleges to which they have been admitted in these writ petitions. 27. It is also noteworthy that majority of the students, namely 240 students in number who are prosecuting their studies in 13 different medical colleges in the State of Telangana, are not before us," the court said.

Regarding the petitions filed by the students, the court stated that the students are at liberty to approach the competent authority seeking refund of the fee. It thereafter dismissed the pleas moved by the institutes and disposed of the pleas moved by the students.

Case title: TRR Institute of Medical Sciences and others vs. Union of India and batch

WRIT PETITION Nos.42853, 42920, 43058 of 2022, 13940, 13976 and 14011 of 2023

Rush to retail shops, tomato prices at 20 a kg

Rush to retail shops, tomato prices at 20 a kg

11.01.2025

Chennai: Get your cookbooks out and check for recipes with tomatoes apart from just adding them to your rasam or salad as the cost per kilogram of the staple has come down to 20 in most retail stores over the last few days. It is likely to remain the same for at least a week or two, vendors say. The cost of a kilogram of premium quality tomato is available anywhere between 10 a kg and 12 a kg in the wholesale market, he said.

The number of trucks entering the Koyambedu vegetable market has increased to nearly 50 a day. Most trucks come from Andhra Pradesh, where the cost of a 25kg box of tomatoes is between 200 and 300, said Jaffer Ali Sait, who has a tomato shop in Koyambedu market. “These are mostly premium quality tomatoes. The harvest has been bountiful this time. Farmers sell it at a lower price because their shelf life is short,” he said.

Tomatoes are transported while they are semi-ripe to prevent damage and provide more time for vendors, said R Ravichandran from MS Tomatoes in Koyambedu market. “Most retailers also pick up vegetables that are semi-ripe. By the time they are on display, it is ready for consumption,” he said.

Retailers say they are seeing high sales of tomatoes this week. “I picked up 5kg of tomatoes. I will use half of them to make pickles and the other half for ketchup,” said Shankari R, who works for a bank. “This week I added tomatoes to most dishes and my family isn’t complaining,” she said.

Central staff who donate organs to get 42-day leave

Central staff who donate organs to get 42-day leave

Jan 11, 2025, 03.41 AM IST

Central govt employees who donate their organs are entitled to a maximum 42-day special casual leave as a “welfare measure”, according to National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organisation.

This will be applicable irrespective of the type of surgery and organs donated, a DoPT order states.

Organ removal from a donor is a major surgery, which entails considerable post-hospitalisation recovery time. A person in India can donate one kidney, a portion of the pancreas and part of the liver.This story continues on page 16 in the newspaper. For your reading convenience we have added it below.

Central govt staff who donate organs are entitled to 42 days of special CL

Times News Network

New Delhi: Central govt employees who donate their organs are entitled to 42-day leave, National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organisation (NOTTO) has said.

According to NOTTO chief Dr Anil Kumar, department of personnel and training (DoPT) has issued orders already. “We have put the orders on our website for wider circulation and awareness recently,” he said.

Organ removal from a donor is a major surgery, which requires time for recovery, including both hospitalisation and post-hospitalisation periods. The DoPT order states the govt has decided to grant a maximum of 42 days special casual leave to central govt employees who decide to donate their organs as a “special welfare measure”.

The 42-day leave rule will be applicable irrespective of type of surgery for removal of donor’s organ, it adds. “Special casual leave shall normally be taken in one stretch starting from the day of admission in the hospital, however, in case of requirement it can be available starting maximum one week prior to surgery on the recommendation of a govt registered medical practitioner or doctor,” the DoPT order says.

A living donor can donate a kidney (as one kidney can maintain the body functions), a portion of pancreas (as half of the pancreas is adequate for sustaining pancreatic functions) and part of the liver (as the few segments that are donated will regenerate after a period).