The Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which prayed for a direction to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh to abstain from engaging in renal organ transplantation in its Department of Urology in violation of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 read with the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 and to evaluate the expertise of prospective renal transplant surgeons as per global medical standards.

The petitioner, Dr Mukut Minz, further prayed for a direction to Union of India to adequately amend Rule 26(c) of the Rules, 2014 in accordance with and at par with global medical standards requisite for minimum qualifications to perform renal transplantation and stay the authority/permissions given to the Urology Department of PGIMER to perform renal transplantation as the present proposed staff lacks the minimum qualification to perform the same.

It is submitted before the High Court that the respondent-authorities have granted permission to commence renal transplantation contrary to the Act and the Rules, 2014. It is stated that the respondent-authorities propose to undertake renal transplantation in violation of the Rules. Hence, the PIL is filed.

Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India, submitted that in fact the action being taken by the respondent authorities is in accordance with the Rules. He undertook that the respondent authorities will be acting strictly in accordance with the Rules and the Statute.

At this stage, as there is no particular instance pointed out by the petitioner in the entire petition relating to violation of the Rules, nor is there any allegation as to whether any individual or person has been subjected to renal transplantation in violation of the Rules, taking the statement of Additional Solicitor General of India and in terms thereof, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and Justice Arun Palli disposed of the petition.

In an important decision the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday, held that woman’s statutory right to avail maternity leave cannot be taken away for the reason that she had availed child care leave earlier for her non-biological kids.

The bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice AS Bopanna said that maternal leave have to be purposively interpreted in line with the object and intent of the Maternity Benefit Act enacted by Parliament.

“The fact that she was given child care leave cannot be used to disentitle her rights under the CCS Rules. The object and intent of the grant of maternity leave would be defeated,” the Court said.

A matter was been heard by the court today where a government employee, who was a nurse at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (PGIMER), was denied maternity leave for her biological child for already having availed such leave for two of her other kids. 

The kids for who she had taken leave were from her first marriage. While she was having child from the second marriage , she was denied her maternity rights.

 She filed a plea with  the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Punjab & Haryana High Court but they dismissed her plea for allowance as per maternity leave benefits in the Central Civil Service Rules of 2013.

This led her to move Supreme Court and present her case. 

The counsel for the respondents submitted that the purpose of restricting maternity leave to the two eldest surviving children was to encourage smaller families. 

Justice Chandrachud stated that her plight of having kids from her husband’s previous marriage was not voluntary.

Justice Chandrachud further said that “She got married into such a family. So your argument won’t apply.”

The bench made it clear that grant of maternity leave is intended for encouraging women to join and continue in the workplace. 

“It is a harsh reality that women would leave in the absence of such facilitative measures. Child birth has to be construed during employment as a natural development in the life of every woman,”.

It was held that the appellant is entitled to the grant of maternity leave, and set aside the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal. 

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and M.R. Shah on Friday heard an urgent plea filed by the father of slain gangster Jaipal Singh Bhullar who was allegedly killed in a staged fake encounter and was subjected to grievous torture in custody. The father of the deceased sought second autopsy of the dead body.

The bench set aside the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court which dismissed the plea filed by father seeking directions to Punjab government to conduct a second autopsy of his son’s body.

The bench while disposing of the case also ordered that the court, which had declined the plea on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, to consider the plea again on Monday.

The bench also directed the Punjab government to make appropriate arrangement to preserve the body, which has been taken to Firozpur in Punjab from Kolkata.

Advocate Ishma Randhawa appeared for the father of the deceased and submitted that, “I am not seeking a CBI probe into the encounter but all I want is second autopsy to ascertain the fact whether he was killed in custodial torture or not. The family member of the deceased have the right to know how their son was killed.”

Advocate Randhawa also contended that, “it is not the case of encounter because the body of the Bhullar has gone blue and many bones are also broken. Which has happened because of torture in police custody.”

The court had dismissed the plea of the gangster’s father, stating that the matter is not under its jurisdiction as encounter took place in Kolkata.

Read Also: Calcutta High Court directs police to evict elderly man’s son and daughter-in-law from his house

On June 17, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had dismissed a petition filed by Bhullar’s father seeking directions to the state of Punjab to conduct a second autopsy of his son’s body either at PGIMER or AIIMS, Delhi.

The court had also dismissed another plea for preserving Bhullar’s body at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER).

Bhullar and another gangster Jaspreet Singh, involved in killing of two policeman recently in Ludhiana, were gunned down by Kolkata police team in a shootout in the city on June 9 after receiving “pin-pointed” information from their Punjab counterparts.