Child labourers rescued from Malpe
Mangaluru: In a joint operation, 17 girls aged around 13 to 18 years, engaged to pick fish at the Malpe port here, were rescued by the women and child development department and Udupi district child protection unit on Thursday, officials said.
The rescue operation was held early Thursday as the children were working to pick fish from the Malpe port for buyers. Police sources say the children, whose parents work in the Udupi district belong to Koppal and Ballari.
Police, Childline, and Nagariga Seva Trust took part in the operation.
The children's details are being examined, the sources said.
The rescued children were produced before the Child Welfare Committee.
District child protection officer Sadanand Nayak, labour officer Kumar, labour inspector Praveen and other officials were part of the team.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Legal heirs can claim reimbursement if govt employee dies during treatment: Allahabad HC
Lucknow (PTI): The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court on Saturday said that if a government employee or pensioner dies during treatment or becomes incapable of making a claim, his legal heirs can also claim reimbursement of medical expenses.
The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai passed the verdict on the petition of Chandra Choor Singh.
The petitioner's father was a retired deputy registrar. He was treated at private hospitals in Lucknow, where he passed away during treatment. The petitioner applied for reimbursement of medical expenses, but the department rejected the claim, stating that only the "beneficiary" can make a claim under the rules.
ALSO READ: KSRTC MD Akram Pasha receives SKOCH National Award for transparent recruitment initiative
The state government argued that under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2011, a claim can only be made by a beneficiary, and the petitioner did not fall within this category. It also cited the limit of Rs 5,000 set out in the succession certificate submitted by the petitioner.
The court rejected this argument of the state government, stating that the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules, 2011, were arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court held that if a beneficiary dies or becomes incapable of making a claim, his or her legal heirs cannot be deprived of this right.
Applying the principle of "reading down", the Court directed that Rule 16 be interpreted to include legal heirs, especially when there is no other eligible beneficiary.
The court also clarified that if there is no dispute about being an heir, it is not appropriate to reject the claim merely on technical grounds.
Ultimately, the court directed the concerned authority to reconsider the petitioner's claim and take a decision within two months, and if the claim is found to be correct, payment should be ensured within one month.
