Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 724 (MP)

Akhilesh Singh Baghel v. State of M. P.

2013-06-28

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2013
JUDGMENT : The grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Village Employment Assistant vide an order dated 13-10-2010 and was posted in Gram Panchayat, Madwa. The petitioner gave his joining pursuant to his said order of appointment and started working. However, because of ill-will of the respondents No. 5 and 6, he was not being paid any honorarium and several requests were made by him before the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat as also before the Collector, Umariya but on his complaint no action was taken and no payment was made to him. Only a letter was issued to the Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat in general within the Block Karkeli, District Umariya, on 11-3-2011 for sending attendance of such Village Employment Assistants so that they may be paid their honorarium. By the letter of the even date, all the Sarpanchs and Secretaries of the Gram Panchayats within the Block were directed to permit such Village Employment Assistants to mark their presence in the office of the Gram Panchayat and to send the said information to the concerning Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat so that their honorarium may be paid. However, despite this demand since nothing was done, the petitioner was required to approach this Court by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Notices were issued to the respondents and respondents No. 1 to 4 have filed their return contending that complaint was received with respect to non-appearance of the petitioner in the Gram Panchayat. A committee of three persons namely the Additional Programme Officer, Assistant Block Development Officer and Panchayat Coordinator was constituted by the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Karkeli to conduct an enquiry in that respect. On 8-11-2011 a report was made available and it was said that in fact the petitioner was not being allowed to mark his attendance in the Gram Panchayat as was deposed by several persons, who were associated in working of various schemes, being run by the Gram Panchayat. On 8-11-2011 a report was made available and it was said that in fact the petitioner was not being allowed to mark his attendance in the Gram Panchayat as was deposed by several persons, who were associated in working of various schemes, being run by the Gram Panchayat. A letter was thereafter issued to the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Madwa on 7-5-2011 directing that the attendance of the petitioner be recorded every day, A complaint was made by the petitioner before the Collector again that he was not being paid the honorarium only because his attendance was not certified by the Secretary and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The Collector directed that enquiry be conducted and in case it is found that Secretary and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat are guilty of any such act, action be taken against them according to law. 3. By filing a return, respondents No. 5 and 6 have contended that in fact all sort of false allegations are made by the petitioner that he was attending the work at Gram Panchayat, Madwa. Complaint about non-attending the work by the petitioner in the said Gram Panchayat was made to the Chief Executive Officer. The enquiry was conducted by the Committee on such complaint but no opportunity was granted to the respondents No. 5 and 6 for making any statement. In fact the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat, Umariya has also directed to conduct an enquiry but nothing was done. Proceedings were recorded in the tour diary of the Gram Panchayat where it was recorded that the petitioner has not attended the work. Thus, it is contended that in fact the petitioner has not performed any work and was not entitled to be paid any honorarium. 4. By filing a rejoinder the petitioner has controverted such stand taken by the respondents in their return and has very categorically contended that the respondents No. 5 and 6 were making false allegations against him that he was not attending the duty in Gram Panchayat. In fact the petitioner is engaged in MANREGA scheme and he is required to see that employment is given to the village persons in terms of the said scheme. In fact the petitioner is engaged in MANREGA scheme and he is required to see that employment is given to the village persons in terms of the said scheme. For the said purposes, after attending the office, he is required to look out the works, which are started under the said scheme to verify whether the employment is given to the village people or not. The statement of witnesses were recorded by the members of the Committee and they have categorically deposed that in fact petitioner was not being allowed by the respondents No. 5 and 6 to mark his presence in the Gram Panchayat though he was working. It is contended that the enquiry was not conducted even after directions issued by the Collector and the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat. For such conduct of respondents No. 5 and 6, no action was taken against the erring persons. In view of this, their stand cannot be accepted and petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of payment of honorarium for the period he has discharged the duties. It is seen that no additional return is filed by any of the respondents after filing of the rejoinder by the petitioner. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. It is to be seen that the petitioner is appointed in a scheme which is sponsored by the Central Government. The very object of the scheme is to provide employment as is guaranteed to the village people. The purpose of appointment of the petitioner is to see that the village people are properly given the employment in any of the project, which is started under the scheme within the vicinity of the village concerned. He is not appointed for the purposes of discharging any duty in the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat is only to supervise the working in the said scheme of MANREGA and not to administer the said scheme. The nodal agency to administer the said work in the scheme is the Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat concerned. It is further to be seen that when the complaint was made by the petitioner, an enquiry was got conducted and a report was received. In the report it was categorically recorded by the Committee that the petitioner though was presenting himself in the Gram Panchayat but his attendance was not marked. It is further to be seen that when the complaint was made by the petitioner, an enquiry was got conducted and a report was received. In the report it was categorically recorded by the Committee that the petitioner though was presenting himself in the Gram Panchayat but his attendance was not marked. Since the petitioner was not an employee of the Gram Panchayat, marking of his attendance in the Gram Panchayat was only a formality to ensure that the petitioner was discharging his duties assigned to him in the scheme and nothing else. This being so, once it was stated by the witnesses that the petitioner was present and was discharging his functions but his attendance was not marked, it was to be treated that respondents No. 5 and 6 were guilty of not allowing the petitioner to work in the scheme. 7. Even after obtaining such a report and directions issued by the Chief Executive Officer since nothing was done by the respondents No. 5 and 6, when the complaint was made by the petitioner before the Collector, he categorically directed that enquiry be conducted again and if it is found that respondents No. 5 and 6 are guilty of not allowing the petitioner to discharge his function, action be taken against them in accordance to the law. Power under section 86 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (herein after referred to as 'Act') is required to be exercised only in such circumstances to ensure that instructions issued by the competent authorities are complied with by the Secretary and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. A special power is conferred on the competent authority under sub-section (2) of section 86 of the Act aforesaid where it is prescribed that in case the Panchayat is not complying with the directions so issued, the prescribed authority shall have all necessary powers to get the directions complied with. This being so, it was necessary for the respondent No. 2 to exercise such a power or at least authorize respondent No. 3 to exercise such a power to see that the directions are complied with by the Gram Panchayat. This being so, it was necessary for the respondent No. 2 to exercise such a power or at least authorize respondent No. 3 to exercise such a power to see that the directions are complied with by the Gram Panchayat. From the return of respondents No. 5 and 6 it is clear that a letter was issued by the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat, Umariya directing them to permit the petitioner to perform the duty but such a direction was not complied with by the said respondents No. 5 and 6. In view of this, the respondents No. 2 and 4 could have taken an action under the provisions of section 40 and section 69 read with section 70 of the Act against the respondents Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat but they again utterly failed to see that their own directions are not complied with and if such a directions are not complied with, to take action against erring Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. 8. The respondents No. 5 and 6 were duty bound to remain present before the enquiry Committee when such enquiry was conducted on their own complaint. The enquiry Committee has recorded this fact that despite granting opportunities again and again, neither the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat remained present nor the Sarpanch has appeared to give any statement. Even on certain occasion on telephone and during conversations in person directions were given in this respect but they have avoided to comply such directions. This conduct of respondents No. 5 and 6 shows that since they were not pleased with the appointment of the petitioner, they were not allowing the petitioner to perform his duties. In such circumstances it was the duty of the respondent Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat to submit a report in that respect to the Collector and to the Sub Divisional Officer, Umariya for taking suitable action against the respondents No. 5 and 6. From the narration of these facts it is clear that respondent No. 3 has utterly failed in discharge of his duties. This has caused the financial loss to the petitioner by way of not making payment of honorarium when he has discharged his duties. In view of this conduct of the respondents, their stand taken in the return cannot be accepted. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. This has caused the financial loss to the petitioner by way of not making payment of honorarium when he has discharged his duties. In view of this conduct of the respondents, their stand taken in the return cannot be accepted. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent Collector, Umariya, is directed to ensure by directing a subordinate competent Gazetted Officer working under him to record the statement of witnesses and to find out whether the petitioner has discharged his duties with effect from the date of his joining on 18-10-2010 in the scheme of MANREGA as Village Employment Assistant and in case it is found that he has discharged his duties, to calculate all the amount of his honorarium payable under the scheme and direct respondent No. 3 to make payment of such honorarium to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that in case even after enquiry and recording a finding that the petitioner is entitled to payment of honorarium, the amount is not paid to him within the aforesaid period, the said amount of honorarium will carry an interest at the rate of 6% per annum, which will be deductible from the salary of the competent authority, who is required to sanction of payment of such amount to the petitioner. The Collector, Umariya, is further directed to ensure initiation of an enquiry against the conduct of respondents No. 5 and 6, as complained by the petitioner, under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, and after granting them opportunity of hearing, to pass suitable orders recording finding in that respect in accordance to law. These directions and the orders of this Court be strictly complied with. 10. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid directions. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.