Lourembam Nimaichand Meitei And Others vs State Of Manipur And Others

R.S., CJ

The prayers No. (iii), (iv),(v) and (vi) in this PIL are as follows:-

"(iii) Issue an order or direction for guarantee of rural employment by providing at least 100 days unskilled manual works in a financial year;

(iv) Grant wages for 24 days to the petitioners for the unskilled manual work done by them under MGNREGA Scheme in the projects covered by Annexure A-4/2,A-5/2 and A-6/2.

(v) Grant wages for 24 days to the other persons for the unskilled manual work done by them in the Projects covered by Annexure A-4/2, A-5/2 and A-6/2 under MGNREGA Scheme;

(vi) Grant wages for appropriate and exact days to other job card holders for the unskilled manual work done by them in the Projects covered by Annexure A-4/2, A-5/2 and A-6/2 under MGNREGA Scheme;"

[2] The cause of action for filing this Public Interest Litigation is to provide 100 days unskilled manual work to the unemployed rural people who are holding job cards under the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), 2005.

[3] The petitioners who are job card holders and others as same as them had performed whole working days in the unskilled manual work done under MGNREGA project covering (1) Land Development at Mana Ingkhol Football Playground Ward No.2 of Mayanglangjing Gram Panchayat bearing work order code No. 2007006/LD/9833, (2) WBM at Khoirom Leirak at Kameng Sabal, Mayanglangjing Gram Panchayat bearing work order code No.2007006021/RC/25431 and (3) Phase II WBM at Khoirom Leirak Kameng Sabal of Mayanglangjing Gram Panchayat bearing work order code No.2007006021/RC/25899 which were already completely done. The wage components of the said three works had been sanctioned and withdrawn by the respondent No.4.

[4] The attendance record regarding working days for the petitioners as well as for others selected like the petitioners had not been measured exactly by whimsical act of respondent No.4. Their attendances had been recorded only 4 or 5 days whereas some job card holders and their adult household members who had done equal work in equal days had been recorded their attendances as 22 or 24 days at the mercy of respondent No.4. Huge discrepancies were occurred in recording attendance of job card holders and disbursement of actual wages.

[5] In this regard, the petitioner relies on a Study on the Performance of MGNREGA in Manipur by students of School of Social Sciences, College of Post Graduate Studies, Central Agricultural University, Umiam, Meghalaya and in that they have highlighted inadequate or improper execution of the MGNREGA Scheme and in order to ensure that this Scheme is made effectively implemented and there is no denial of work to the job card holders as per the period fixed under the Scheme and for payment of adequate remuneration for the work done by the job card holders, the petitions have been filed in the public interest highlighting the various issues which need to be addressed by the Government in the implementation of the MGNREGA Scheme. In this regard, no specific representation has been made to the authority concerned.

[6] Learned Advocate General, Manipur states that the Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Govt. of Manipur is the nodal agency to ensure that the Scheme under the MGNREGA Act, 2005 is implemented in pith and substance. The said authority is respondent No.1. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are the implementing agencies.

[7] The learned AG states that there is no second opinion or thought that the job card holders and various Schemes under the MGNREGA Act, 2005 is to be implemeted in pith and substances and it should be not only for the welfare for the job card holders but for improving the financial conditions in the rural areas on the basis of the said Scheme. The Court may issue suitable direction to the authorities to strictly implement the provisions of the Act and ensure the scheme operates keeping in mind the best interest of the State of Manipur.

[8] We have perused the nature of the relief sought for by the petitioners and considered the grievance submitted by the petitioner in the Misc. Case and as also the details of the Scheme under the MGNREGA Act, 2005 and the issues highlighted by the petitioners on faulty implementation of the scheme. We have also noted that one of the main grievance is that there should be no discrimination in employment of job card holders which is a matter which needs to be considered seriously by the authorities because if there is any discrimination or favouritism, it may lead to unwanted heartburn in the people of the local area. We have also taken note of the study on the performance of the MGNREGA by students which will be of some assistances to the 1st respondent to have a real time assessment of the working of the Social Welfare department, more particularly, in relation to implementation of the various scheme under the MGNREGA Act, 2005.

[9] In the result, we direct the respondent No.1 and his subordinate officers to strictly comply with the procedures on the various schemes provided under the MGNREGA Act and implement the same so as to benefit the State and the rural areas by giving proper employment to the job card holders and such other persons who may be enrolled under the MGNREGA Scheme.

[10] We hope and expect that the 1st respondent will discharge his duty in the above issues with full participation and cooperation.

[11] Accordingly, these PILs stand disposed of.