Dr.Bhupat Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

/ $0 ...Q,':'.f'?...4i.€?f</.a=1 20111 WW(W) WWW mW %wf%mm mmwauaa s wr ohan Shnvastava'

M J Hon blé Shri Mani 24-12 14 s Shn Ajay Shnvastava ounsel for the petmoner/ Shrl Y.S.ThaKur, Dy.A.

forthe State.

, .

Heard , The petmoner ls see ng a direction to respondents to hand'

him over the charge of t e office of Block Medrcal Offrcer rn r 'compllance of State ernments, Circular dated 04/08/11 (Annexure P/11) Learned counset for t e petrttoner submits that the petitioner was holding the charge of leave for 42 days and duri g that period a Junior officer posted at Basna was given thecharg of Block Medical Offcer After return the charge should have be n'handed over to the petitioner but till date no order has been pas ed The State has come ut With a policy to allow a senior officer '

g to hold thecharge of high r.office.

lt appears that the petitioner was handed over the char e of higher office but as he proceeded on leave it was handed ov r to the Junior Whether after return of V'

the petitioner Circumstanc s warrant that the charge should be . handed over to him, is a matter for consideration for the State .

because circular dated 4/08/11'itself makes a provision for I of, deviation from thislnor al rule.

Whether in exigency L administration, normal rule is to be'deviated o'r the'charge handed

3%a:unnaé,§E%an€,§Ena3g 1mm mwx'éég3f"

mmv§ha§lf V «2V mm WW ma? wanéar %ait%man%$r 5A7 over to the petitioner be deviated, in the light of aforesaid circular, the Chief Medical Health Officer, Mahasamund should consider whether th'e'"exigency requires bypzhssing normal rule or the charge handed over to the petitioner shculd be deviated.

The decision shall be taken within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt'of copy of this order'

Thekpetition is finally dispose t off.

i b My SdlhrivastaVa Manindra MOhan S Deepti Judge