JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has submitted that in respect of the claims which were disposed of by the Lok Adalats during the period from February 5, 1995 till September 15, 1995 the claimants were not allowed to be represented by lawyers and the claims were decided in the absence of any legal assistance being available to the claimants and proper medical evidence was not allowed to be produced in support of the claims. It has also been submitted that in many of the claims by claimants were falling in Medical Category 'C' and above and that the amount of compensation that has been awarded by the Lok Adalats is less than the amount payable under the Scheme of 1985. The petitioner has also stated that appeals filed by the claimants against the Lok Adalats have not been entertained by the concerned Additional Welfare Commissioner on the ground that appeal lay against such awards. In this circumstances, it is directed that the claimant falling in Medical Category 'C' and above who feels aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the Lok Adalat and the appeal being not entertained by the Additional Welfare Commissioner again such award may file a review petition f review of the award. Such review petition shall be considered by the concerned Additional Welfare Commissioner. The office of the Welfare Commissioner issue a public notice with regard to above direction given by this Court and publish in a local newspaper so that the claimants know that they can file a review petition review petition should be filed within months from the date of the publication the notice. 2. The petitioner has also pointed out that the guidelines prepared by Shri V.K. Saxena, who was functioning as the Welfare Commissioner, are being followed by the Deputy Welfare Commissioners/Additional Welfare Commissioners while dealing with even though under the Scheme of 1985 compensation has to be awarded in the range as prescribed for each medical category. In this regard, it is directed that the Welfare Commissioner shall examine the said guidelines in the light of the norms laid down in the Scheme and, if he finds that the guidelines need modification, he may direct such modification in the guidelines. In this regard, it is directed that the Welfare Commissioner shall examine the said guidelines in the light of the norms laid down in the Scheme and, if he finds that the guidelines need modification, he may direct such modification in the guidelines. As regards following of the guidelines, it is directed that the Deputy Welfare - Commissioners and the Additional Welfare Commissioners, while determining the compensation shall take into consideration not only the said guidelines but also the evidence that is adduced by the claimant in support of his claim and shall determine the amount of compensation accordingly. 3. The petitioner has also referred to the grievance of the claimants that in many cases where claim for compensation has been adjudicated and award has been made by the Deputy/Additional Welfare Commissioner, the Welfare Commissioner, in exercise of his suo-moto power of revision, has re-opened the matter and in that event nothing is being paid to the claimant against the compensation that has been awarded to him during the pendency of such revision. In this connection, it is directed that if the Welfare Commissioner invokes his power of suo moto revision in respect of orders passed by the Deputy/Additional Welfare Commissioner, he shall pass an appropriate order whether the whole or a part of the amount of compensation should be disbursed during the pendency of the revision. 4. In his affidavit dated November 6, 1997 the petitioner has stated that most of the medical officers who have been treating the victims of the tragedy at Bhopal and who have acquired specialised knowledge relating to the ailments are being transferred from Bhopal to other places and this would not only have an adverse effect on the medical facilities that are available for treatment of the victims but will also affect the disposal of the claims of the claimants before the Deputy/Additional Welfare Commissioners because the evidence of those medical officers would not be available to the claimants. Shri A.K. Chitale, the learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, prays for three weeks time to file a reply to the said averment contained in the affidavit. Time prayed for is a owed. In the meanwhile, no further transfer of the medical officers dealing with the ailments of the victims of the tragedy shall be made. Shri A.K. Chitale, the learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, prays for three weeks time to file a reply to the said averment contained in the affidavit. Time prayed for is a owed. In the meanwhile, no further transfer of the medical officers dealing with the ailments of the victims of the tragedy shall be made. In the said reply the State shall also explain the position regarding the working of the Pulmonary Medical Centre which is required to be set up at Bhopal. 5. Put up on December 5, 1997.