Uniforms must for Delhi govt hospital staff: Govt order
The Capital's health & family welfare department has directed all government-run hospitals to enforce mandatory uniform and name badge rules for doctors, nurses, technicians and outsourced workers, warning that violators will face on the spot penalties, according to an order issued on May 16 and officials familiar with the decision.
The latest directive, officials said, is a firm reminder to comply with the mandate adding tighter limits on the uniform code to ensure staff can be instantly identified and patients better protected.
The circular, sent to every medical superintendent (MS), medical director (MD) and head of department (HOD), says the 'designated colour-coded attire along with a name-plate clipped on the left side of the chest' is essential 'to ensure proper identification of hospital personnel and for proper functioning of hospitals.' Outsourced staff must wear clean uniforms carrying the service provider's logo, it added.
The health & family welfare department's order, issued on 16 May and reviewed by HT, instructs medical superintendents, medical directors and heads of department to 'strictly enforce the uniform policy' so that genuine personnel can be easily identified and impostors deterred.
'It's been observed that the doctors, nursing staff, paramedics/technicians, nursing orderlies and other staff … avoid wearing the mandated dress despite drawing uniform allowances,' the order states.
Nodal housekeeping officers and duty doctors in charge of each floor, out-patient department (OPD) and in-patient department (IPD) areas must conduct surprise checks 'at intervals not exceeding three hours'. Any non-compliance - by regular, contractual or outsourced staff - will trigger 'immediate action', the directive adds.
For each instance of not wearing the prescribed uniform, a government or contractual employee's daily uniform allowance will be deducted 'without further inquiry', the order says. Repeated violations may attract a show-cause notice under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, potentially stopping at least one yearly increment. MSs and MDs may penalise officials up to Group 'C'; recommendations for higher cadres must go to the secretary (health & family welfare).
Officials said the crackdown follows complaints of impostors posing as hospital staff and extorting money from patients' attendants. The government hopes mandatory uniforms and badges will deter such incidents, they added.
Staff have also been told to refrain from personal mobile-phone use during duty hours and to keep phones 'only for official duties while on shift.' Violations will invite the same penalty provisions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
2 days ago
- New Indian Express
TN government opening hospitals, liquor shops simultaneously is ironic: Madras HC
MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has observed that a welfare government should strive to enforce prohibition rather than establishing more Tasmac shops. 'When right to health is a fundamental right, the state must ensure that prohibition is slowly implemented in a phased manner to reduce harm to public health,' a bench comprising justices SM Subramaniam and AD Maria Clete observed while allowing a petition by K Kannan, seeking closure of a Tasmac shop located on Tiruchy Road in Dindigul district. Kannan said two schools are located within 50 metres from the Tasmac shop. A church and a government hospital are also situated nearby, he added. Counsel for Tasmac said the distance restriction of 50 metres under the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003, would not apply to the shop, as it is situated in a commercial area.
The Hindu
2 days ago
- The Hindu
Contradictory for welfare government to establish more hospitals on and simultaneously open TASMAC liquor shops, says HC
It is contradictory for a welfare government to establish more hospitals on the one hand and simultaneously establish Tasmac liquor shops on the other hand. This is not in consonance with Constitutional ethos, observed the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court while directing the closure of a Tasmac shop in Dindigul. A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete said when Right to Health is a fundamental right, the State must ensure that the prohibition is slowly implemented in a phased manner to reduce harm to public health. The court was hearing the public interest litigation petition filed by K. Kannan of Dindigul. The petitioner sought a direction to the authorities to close a Tasmac shop located on Tiruchi road in Dindigul. He said the road was used by school children. The children and other road users were finding it difficult to use the road freely and peacefully, he said. In the counter affidavit, Dindigul District Tasmac Manager submitted that the claim the liquor shop was located close to school, health and religious institutions was incorrect. The shop was located within Corporation limits, where the prohibited distance was 50 meters as per Rule 8 of Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. Since the Tasmac shop was situated in a commercial area, the proviso to Rule 8 of the Rules states that the distance restriction shall not apply. The court said it was of the considered view that mere guidelines and rules fixing certain distances cannot be the sole criterion. In the present case, the road was used by children to reach their school and it served as a direct pathway. Consequently, the Tasmac shop would undoubtedly cause public nuisance to the road users, children attending the school and persons going to the Church. The judges said, the rules setting minimum distances are regulatory thresholds, but they do not exhaust all public health and welfare concerns. Mere compliance with the distance rule does not validate a location if the broader environment is harmful. Undoubtedly, a Tasmac shop may cause nuisance to the road users in the locality, particularly, to the children during school hours. It is the duty of the State to ensure that no such nuisance is caused to the citizens and road users. Besides, Article 47 of the Constitution directs that the State shall regard raising the level of nutrition and standard of living of its people and improvement of public health as among its primary duties and in particular the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medical purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health. It is a Constitutional philosophy and the Directive principles insist that a welfare government should strive wholeheartedly to enforce prohibition, rather than establish more Tasmac shops which adversely affect public health. Closure of one Tasmac shop would not cause any prejudice but would rather benefit the public at large, the court observed and directed the authorities to close the Tasmac shop in two weeks. The judges posted the matter for reporting compliance on June 18.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
HC orders closure of Tasmac shop causing nuisance to public
Madurai: It is contradictory for a welfare govt to establish more hospitals on the one hand and simultaneously establish Tasmac shops on the other hand, observed Madras high court while directing the authorities to close a Tasmac shop situated in Dindigul district. The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by K Kannan. The petitioner stated that a Tasmac shop on Trichy Road in Dindigul, is causing nuisance to the public, especially children using the road to go to schools. Hence, the petitioner moved court seeking to immediately close the shop. In the counter, the Dindigul district Tasmac manager submitted that the petitioner's claim, is incorrect. The shop is located within the corporation limits, where the prohibited distance is 50m as per Rule 8 of Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. However, since the shop is situated in a commercial area, the proviso to Rule 8 of the Rules states that the distance restriction shall not apply. A division bench of justice S M Subramaniam and justice A D Maria Clete observed that mere adherence to the distance criterion is insufficient when certain mitigating circumstances are raised by an aggrieved citizen. Undoubtedly, a Tasmac shop might cause nuisance to the road users in the locality, particularly to the children during school hours. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Switch to UnionBank Rewards Card UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo It is the duty of the state to ensure that no such nuisance is caused to the citizens and road users. The judges observed that Article 47 of the Constitution directs that the state shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties. "Constitutional philosophy and the directive principles insist that a welfare govt should strive wholeheartedly to enforce prohibition, rather than establish more Tasmac shops which adversely affect public health. It is contradictory for a welfare govt to establish more hospitals on the one hand and simultaneously establish Tasmac shops on the other. This is not in consonance with Constitutional ethos. When the right to health is a fundamental right, the state must ensure that the prohibition is slowly implemented in a phased manner to reduce harm to public health," the judges observed. The judges observed that in the present case, the road is used by the children to reach their school and it serves as a direct pathway. Consequently, the Tasmac shop would undoubtedly cause public nuisance to the road users and school children. "The closure of one Tasmac shop would not cause any prejudice but would rather benefit the public at large," the judges observed and directed the authorities to close the shop within two weeks.
