Dhirendra Kumar Das vs State Of Odisha And Others

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. Satapathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He submits, initially work order dated 1st May, 2012 was issued to his client for purpose of excavation and creation of pond for Pisciculture. Value of the work order was Rs.1,15,000/-. The work order stood issued by the Fisheries Department in implementing provisions in Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (MGNREGA). He submits, subsequently fresh work order was issued enhancing the value to Rs.1,86,000/-. His client completed the work but payment on the work order was not made. On earlier approach to this Court, his client’s writ petition was disposed of with direction upon the authorities to consider his client’s claim. The consideration resulted in impugned order dated 16th December, 2019. He submits, there be interference with purported decisions stated in impugned order, to deny his client’s entitlement to payment under the work order. He clarifies, the revised work order was issued under the scheme ‘Mo Pokhari’ also covered by MGNREGA.

Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of opposite party nos.1 to 4. He draws attention to paragraph 5 in the counter and submits, the pond under ‘Mo Pokhari’ was completed during years, 2012-13 and an amount of Rs.37,716/- was released in favour of job card holders for the excavation work. He submits, there should not be interference.

For purpose of adjudication Court looked at guidelines for excavation of multipurpose farm pond under NREGS circulated vide letter dated 4th January, 2010, of Panchayat Raj Department. Reproduced below is object of the guidelines.

“Excavation of “multipurpose farm pond” in the land of small and marginal farmers will fulfill the basic objective of MNREGS i.e. providing employment to the rural household. It will also be utilized for multipurpose use like Pisciculture, Conservation, Protective Irrigation, Horticulture, and Plantation to improve their livelihood status.”

(emphasis supplied)

Under clause (H) is provision for fund flow. Mr. Nanda relies upon it as well as sub-clause (x) under clause (I) to submit, wages of the labourers are to be transferred to their savings accounts through Bank/Post office. The beneficiary is not entitled to payment.

Clause (H) and sub-clauses (iii), (iv), (viii) and (x) under clause (I) are reproduced below.

“(H) Fund Flow:-

The funds for excavation of multipurpose Farm Ponds will be released to the representative of Fisheries Department at district level from concerned DRDAs directly.

(I) Implementation Procedure:-

xxx xxx xxx

(iii) After field enquiry, if the beneficiary is found eligible and project is feasible, the work order will issued in favour of beneficiary by the implementing agencies. All the documents and enquiry report will be kept in the concerned case record.

(iv) The multipurpose Farm Pond will be executed by engaging the family members (Registered with the GP under NREGA and if not already resisted they should be Registered) of the beneficiary as well as other registered job seekers of the GP.

xxx xxxxxx

(viii) Payment shall be made on piece rate i.e. on out turn basis (not on wage rate basis).

xxx xxx xxx

(x) The wages of the labourers will be transferred to their savings accounts through Bank/Post office”

(emphasis supplied)

It is clear that on objective of including livelihood status of small and marginal farmers, multipurpose farm ponds were to be created under the guidelines for use like Pisciculture, Conservation, Protective Irrigation, Horticulture, and Plantation. In the case of petitioner it is to be Pisciculture. The fund to fulfill this objective in respect of, inter alia, petitioner was to be obtained by the Fisheries Department at district level from concerned District Rural Development Agency (DRDA). This is the corpus fund, from where there would be disbursement under the work orders.

Clause (I) under the guidelines provides for field enquiry to select beneficiary eligibility and feasibility. Sub-clause (iv) provides for execution by engaging family members as well as other registered job-seekers of the Gram Panchayat. Sub-clause (viii) provides for payment to be made.

It appears from impugned order that Rs.37,716/- was released in favour of job card holders prior to issuance of the work order valued at Rs.1,86,000/-. Decisions taken by impugned order are reproduced below.

“Now, the matter is decided as follows:

• The petitioner has availed Govt. assistance in “Mo Pokhari” Yojana under MGNREGS, through Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Odisha over the same piece of land, wherein excavation of multipurpose farm pond was proposed.

• The Opposite Party No.3, though had issued work order, but had not recommended the work of the petitioner to dig a multipurpose farm pond under MGNREGS to the Panchayat for arrangement of Job card Labourers and generation of Muster Roll through Gramsathi and Gram, Rozgar Sebak (GRS).

• Besides, the petitioner has made a claim that he has excavated the pond under MGNREGS by spending his own money, but the same is not permitted as per the guidelines of MGNREGS.”

First point of decision is implication that petitioner stands disqualified on having earlier obtained assistance from the Government. This point cannot be sustained since, issuance of work order, as assistance under NRGES, was to be upon ascertaining eligibility and feasibility. There is no statement that this was not done prior to issuance of the work order of Rs.1,86,000/-. Moving on to the second point of decision, it is to be rejected out of hand. It is no matter whether the authority in considering petitioner’s representation had itself recommended the work. What is important is, work order stood issued in his favour. It was not revoked or cancelled. Last and final point of decision that payment under the work order on claim that beneficiary has spent his own money is not permitted under the guidelines stands unsubstantiated and contrary to sub-clauses (iv) and (viii) under clause (I) in the guidelines. There is no material to show bank/postal transfer to job-card holders were or that any such transfer was made as to be adjusted against the work order.

Impugned order is set aside and quashed. Opposite party no.1 is directed to forthwith pay out on the work order at Rs.1,86,000/-. The payment is to be made within two weeks from date, irrespective of communication, failing which the amount will carry interest at 5% per annum simple calculated on and from 7th August, 2019 (date of presentation of WP(C) no.13934 of 2019), till date of payment.

Notwithstanding, above direction for payment, petitioner will forthwith communicate website copy of this order to opposite party no.1.

The writ petition is disposed of.

………………………………..