Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 462 (PAT)

Rajeev Ranjan v. State of Bihar

2015-03-18

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2015
AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, J.:–All the 104 petitioners have filed the present writ application, seeking quashing of letter no. 164833, dated 27.09.2013, which has been issued under the signature of the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar. The reason for seeking such a relief is because the petitioners allege that the power of Programme Officers, which they are, is being curtailed in contravention of section 15 of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, 2005 without any authority of law. 2. They also want quashing of letter no. 166678, dated 22.10.2013, also issued under the signature of Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, by virtue of which certain powers, vested in the Programme Officers, are now being given to Block Development Officers and Nazirs of the block, especially with regard to payment to be made to the beneficiaries under the MGNREGA Programme. 3. The impugned orders are Annexure-4 and 6 respectively to the writ application, whose quashing the petitioners want. 4. Learned senior counsel, representing the petitioners, submits that these petitioners were selected and appointed as Programme Officers in terms of the advertisement, issued by the respondent-State of Bihar and after fulfilling all the requirements and eligibility laid down therein. They have been rendering service in terms of the contract. They are discharging functions under the Act in Panchayats, which includes not only monitoring the various programmes under MGNREGA, but also their sanction, execution and payment of unemployment allowance as well as fair wages to the labourers, working under the scheme. All these powers according to the petitioners are derived from the provisions of section 15 of the Act and the rule, coupled with the guidelines issued by the Central Government. The relevant provisions are reproduced hereinbelow:— “15 (1) At every Panchayat at intermediate level, the State government shall appoint a person who is not below the rank of Block Development Officer with such qualifications and experience as may be determined by the State Government as Programme Officers at the Panchayat at intermediate level. (2) The Programme Officer shall assist the Panchayat at intermediate level in discharging its functions under this Act and any Scheme made thereunder. (3) The Programme Officer shall be responsible for matching the demand for employment with the employment opportunities arising from projects in the area under his jurisdiction. (2) The Programme Officer shall assist the Panchayat at intermediate level in discharging its functions under this Act and any Scheme made thereunder. (3) The Programme Officer shall be responsible for matching the demand for employment with the employment opportunities arising from projects in the area under his jurisdiction. (4) The Programme Officer shall prepare a plan for the Block under his jurisdiction by consolidating the project proposals prepared by the Gram Panchayats and the proposals received from intermediate Panchayats. (5) The functions of the Programme Officer shall include – (a) monitoring of projects taken up by the Gram Panchayats and other implementing agencies within the Block. (b) Sanctioning and ensuring payment of unemployment allowance to the eligible households; (c) ensuring prompt and fair payment of wages to all labourers employed under a programme of the Scheme within the Block. (d) ensuring that regular social audits of all works within the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat are carried out by the Gram Sabha and that prompt action is taken on the objections raised in the social audit; (e) dealing promptly with all complaints that may arise in connection with the implementation of the Scheme within the Block; and (f) any other work as may be assigned to him by the District Programme Coordinator or the State Government. (6) The Programme Officers shall function under the direction, control and superintendence of the District Programme Coordinator. (7) The State Government may, by order, direct that all of any of the functions of a Programme Officer shall be discharged by the Gram Panchayat or a local authority.” 5. Most of these petitioners have been working since the year 2007 and the contract has been extended from time to time. The post of Programme Officer is not below the rank of a Block Development Officer and they are in no manner subordinate to or under the control of any Block Development Officer. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that all had been well till the State authorities decided to issue the two impugned letters. A reading of which will indicate that these petitioners are being made subordinate to the Block Development Officers. They are being made to sign in place of Accountants under the e-FMS system, which uses digital signature for payments under the direct benefit transfer system. A reading of which will indicate that these petitioners are being made subordinate to the Block Development Officers. They are being made to sign in place of Accountants under the e-FMS system, which uses digital signature for payments under the direct benefit transfer system. This system was introduced to ensure direct payment to bank accounts of the beneficiaries electronically. e-FMS system requires two digital signatures, the first digital signature has to be made by the person, who prepares the advise, which is called the fund transfer order and the second digital signature require to be made by the person, who checks the fund transfer order. By the two letters now the Programme Officers are required to prepare the fund transfer order and the Block Development Officers are supposed to be the checking authority before authorizing payments thereof. The District Programme Officers have been made to sign in the column meant for Accounts, which further lowers their status. 7. Though the petitioners by virtue of being Programme Officer do coordinate and supervise the overall work allotted by the Panchayat Samiti as before, but the payments can only be made after the digital signature of Block Development Officers, which is curtailment of their responsibility and powers as well as status as is the stand of the petitioners. 8. Certain guidelines have also been issued by the Central Government in this regard, but the State of Bihar especially the Department of Rural Development in omission and breach thereof, has issued the two impugned letters. 9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Rural Development Department. The stand of the State in the counter affidavit is that neither the Programme Officers’ powers have been curtailed nor they have been made subordinate to Block Development Officers. It is a misnomer on the part of the petitioners. These guidelines or changes with regard to payment of e-FMS method has been evolved by the State government for better working of the system as well as for honest and fair payment to the beneficiaries, in their account. This is the stand of the State counsel based on the statement in the counter affidavit. It is also argued on behalf of the State that these changes have been brought about keeping in mind the past experience and to fine-tune the working of the MGNREGA Programme keeping the beneficiaries in mind. This is the stand of the State counsel based on the statement in the counter affidavit. It is also argued on behalf of the State that these changes have been brought about keeping in mind the past experience and to fine-tune the working of the MGNREGA Programme keeping the beneficiaries in mind. It is widely known that large scale complaints have emerged as well as received in the manner in which the programme is being executed and the beneficiaries being shortchanged, when it came down to payment. It was with this object in mind the electronic transfer of payment in the account of beneficiaries was evolved by the State of Bihar as a check and balance. As a second signatory for authorization of e-payment, the Block Development Officers have been made responsible. There is no question of any exercise of control over the Programme Officers. The Block Development Officers will only put their digital signature before the fund gets transferred. So far as execution of the project is concerned that continues to be the responsibility of Panchayat Samiti and the Programme Officer shall continue to discharge their responsibility without any interference by the Block Development Officers. It was thought to be prudent on the part of the government that a person who is a government servant is involved, especially since large scale public fund is involved. The anxiety as well as reservation expressed by the petitioners with regard to the two communications and letters is nothing but an over-reaction. 10. The Court has gone through the provisions of the Act and heard learned senior counsel quite extensively. 11. Nowhere from a dispassionate reading of the two communications does this Court get a feeling that there is an effort on the part of the State Government to curtail the powers of the Programme Officer or to make them subordinate to the Block Development Officers. The role of the Block Development Officers have been limited to be second signatory and are authorized only to put their digital signature in the final transfer of funds to the accounts of the beneficiaries. The work is still required to be done by the Programme Officers and supervised. They do the checking and certifications with regard to the work as well as the beneficiaries in execution of the work. They continue to certify the implementation of the MGNREGA Programme at the Panchayat level. The work is still required to be done by the Programme Officers and supervised. They do the checking and certifications with regard to the work as well as the beneficiaries in execution of the work. They continue to certify the implementation of the MGNREGA Programme at the Panchayat level. The legal questions which have been raised on behalf of the petitioners are a case of over reaction. No such breach or dilution of the provisions of the MGNREG Act can be read into the two communications, which are under challenge. 12. The Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that an honest effort has to be made for payment of money to the beneficiaries for honest work done. Leakages have to be curtailed in one manner or the other. If the State Government has evolved certain mechanisms as a matter of policy they are the best judge and even otherwise it is not the duty of the Court to advise or interfere with the working arrangements and the administration of such programmes. 13. The Court infact opines that these petitioners’ anxiety is for other reasons and not for bona fide reasons. 14. Writ application, therefore, has failed to make out a case for interference with the two impugned orders, contained in Annexure-4 and 6. Writ application is required to be dismissed and is dismissed.