Govt Should Not Restrict COVID-19 Tests Fearing 70% People Will Test Positive If More Tests Are Done : Gujarat HC

first_imgTop StoriesGovt Should Not Restrict COVID-19 Tests Fearing 70% People Will Test Positive If More Tests Are Done : Gujarat HC LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK24 May 2020 3:58 AMShare This – xThe Gujarat High Court has observed that Gujarat Government should not restrict the number of COVID-19 tests on the fear that more tests would lead to 70% of the population testing positive.”The argument that ‘more number of tests will lead to 70% of the population testing positive for covid, thereby leading to fear psychosis’ should not be a ground to refuse or restrict…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Gujarat High Court has observed that Gujarat Government should not restrict the number of COVID-19 tests on the fear that more tests would lead to 70% of the population testing positive.”The argument that ‘more number of tests will lead to 70% of the population testing positive for covid, thereby leading to fear psychosis’ should not be a ground to refuse or restrict the testing”, observed a bench comprising Justices J B Padriwala and Ilesh J Vora.The bench observed this in response to the stand taken by Advocate General of Gujarat, Kamal Trivedi, that if everybody is tested, 70% of tested people would be found postive for COVID-19, creating fear psyhosis.To address, the ‘fear factor’, the bench directed that the authorities must give wide publicity by way of newspaper advertisements that merely because someone has tested positive, is no reason to panic.Awareness should be spread among public that asymptomatic patients can be cured through home and that one needs to visit hospital only after developing symptoms.”The Respondent Authorities may keep a tab through the testing centres, of all individuals who have tested positive and may enforce isolation at home (as far as possible) or at a quarantine facility, and only in case of symptoms may be considered for being admission into Hospital”, the Court observed.The Court also asked whether 12 private laboratories and 19 govt laboratories are sufficient and good enough in the entire State to conduct the covid test, when the number of cases are constantly rising.The Court also questioned the wisdom behind the State Government directive that COVID-19 testing should be done only in government laboratories, when there are ICMR approved private laboratories. The Court also wondered if it was an “action by the Government to artificially control the data qua the number of cases in the State of Gujarat”.In this regard, the bench referred to the recent judgment passed by the Telangana High Court, which quashed a similar restriction imposed by the Telangana Government.Some of the petitioners questioned the rationale of the change in the guidelines of the ICMR regarding discharge policy of COVID-19 patients. As per the latest ICMR Guidelines, the patients with mild or moderate or no symptoms for 3 or more days, should be discharged without being tested with a prescription for home isolation. The petitioners submitted that there is no scientific data or research or reasoning explained for the sudden change in the guidelines.It was argued that testing should be mandatory prior to discharging.The Court has asked the Government to submit a report on these aspects by May 26, when the matter will be considered next.The Court also raised alarm over the high mortality rate of COVID-19 patients in Ahmedabad Civil Hospital under the control of State Health Department, and observed that the conditions there were “pathetic”. The Government has been asked to immediately resolve the issues such as lack of adequate number of ventilators there.The Court also passed a slew of other directions concerning the welfare of migrants and their rail fare.Read : Is State Govt Aware That COVID-19 Patients At Ahmedabad Civil Hospital Are Dying Because Of Lack Of Ventilators? Asks Gujarat HC [Read Order]Waive Migrants’ One Way Charges Or Levy Fare From State Govt: Gujarat HC Directs Railways [Read Order]’We All Should Become Carpathia’, Gujarat HC Recalls Titanic Saviour Ship To Urge People To Help Each Other In Fight Against COVID-19 Click here to download the OrderSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

Suspension Not Punishment, Merely Abeyance Of Employer-Employee Relationship: Telangana HC Says “Employer Can’t Be Saddled With Employee Facing Criminal Trial”

first_imgNews UpdatesSuspension Not Punishment, Merely Abeyance Of Employer-Employee Relationship: Telangana HC Says “Employer Can’t Be Saddled With Employee Facing Criminal Trial” Mehal Jain22 Sep 2020 2:05 AMShare This – xNoting that “suspension is not a punishment” and that it is “merely suspending the relationship between the employer and an employee”, the Telangana High Court on Wednesday reiterated that under civil service rules, an employee can be suspended either if a Criminal case is pending, or a Departmental Enquiry is contemplated.The Court was hearing the challenge to his suspension order by a…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginNoting that “suspension is not a punishment” and that it is “merely suspending the relationship between the employer and an employee”, the Telangana High Court on Wednesday reiterated that under civil service rules, an employee can be suspended either if a Criminal case is pending, or a Departmental Enquiry is contemplated.The Court was hearing the challenge to his suspension order by a Deputy Tahasildar, against whom a F.I.R. had come to be registered on 24.07.2020 for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 506 read with 34 I.P.C., following which he was suspended on 31.07.2020. The appellant had challenged the legality of the order, dated 17.08.2020, passed by a Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed impugning his suspension order, was dismissed.”Since the petitioner is facing both the Criminal trial, and a Departmental Enquiry, the employer cannot be saddled with such an employee”, said the bench of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice T. Vinod Kumar, holding the issuing of the suspension order as justified.The bench noted that Rule 8 of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 clearly states that an employee can be suspended either if a Criminal case is pending, or a Departmental Enquiry is contemplated. “In the present case, admittedly, the Article of Charges has been furnished to the petitioner on 31.07.2020. Thus, obviously a Departmental Enquiry has commenced. Moreover, undoubtedly, an F.I.R. has been registered against the petitioner on 24.07.2020 at Police Station, Karimnagar Rural for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 506 read with 34 I.P.C”, recorded the bench, commenting that, thus, both the conditions, prescribed by Rule 8 of the Rules are fulfilled in the present case.The counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is almost at the end of his service career, as he is about to retire within a period of one year. Secondly, the allegations made against him relate to the year 2005-2006. Therefore, by suspending the petitioner, after a lapse of almost fourteen years, will not serve any fruitful purpose. Thirdly, the alleged complaint on the basis of which the Criminal case has been registered against the petitioner also relates to the period of 2005- 2006, and that the complainant has already lost his case before the revenue authorities. It was urged that even the F.I.R. is a false and frivolous one, and has been lodged merely to harass the petitioner. Thus, it was prayed that the impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Court.Observing that whether the F.I.R. is a false or frivolous one cannot be decided by the High Court, for, it is for the Trial Court to decide about the veracity and authenticity of the F.I.R., and that therefore, the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. is a false and a frivolous one is clearly untenable, the bench dismissed the appeal.Click Here To Download Judgment[Read Judgment]Next Storylast_img read more