Girija Saseendran vs Block Programme Officer Parakkadavu Block Panchayath, Kurumassery, Ernakulam 683579

V.G.Arun, J

The petitioners are permanent residents of Ward No.15 of Nedumbassery Grama Panchayat. They were employed for doing unskilled manual work in Ward No.14 of the Panchayat, under the Scheme formulated for giving effect to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREG Act), 2005. According to the petitioners, they had been allotted for doing work in Ward No.14 from 2008 onwards and had been doing their work without any cause for complaint. While so, the Standing Committee of the Panchayat decided to engage the petitioners for work in Ward No.15 (Ext.P3). Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioners preferred representation before the first respondent, resulting in Ext.P4 communication requiring the Secretary of the Panchayat to provide employment to the petitioners within 5 Kms of their residence. The sudden reallocation of the petitioners and two other workers from Ward No.14 gave rise to widespread agitation, compelling the Panchayat to discuss the issue. Ultimately, the Panchayat decided to relocate the petitioners to Ward No.15 and to retain the other two employees in Ward No.14 itself (Ext.P7). The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P3 and P7 decisions and to implement the direction in Ext.P4 communication.

Adv.Sandesh Raja, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that relocation of the petitioners from Ward No.14 to Ward No.15 is not only arbitrary, but will also result in loss of number of working days for them. The decision is also stated to be discriminatory, since the petitioners are singled out for re-allotment to Ward No.15, while the other workers, against whom the same action was proposed, are retained at Ward No.14 itself. It is submitted that, going by the contentions in the counter affidavit, the re-allotment is punitive and in such event, the decision should be preceded by an enquiry and the petitioners provided with an opportunity of hearing.

Adv.George Sebastian, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent Panchayat, submitted that the District Collector, who is the District Programme Coordinator of MGNRE Schemes, had considered the petitioners' complaint and issued Ext.R2(a), directing the Panchayat to provide employment to the petitioners within 5 Kms of their residence. Being residents of Ward No.15, the petitioners cannot have any complaint in being allocated to their own ward. Reference is made to Ext.R2(c) application dated 17.06.2021 to point out that the petitioners themselves had sought employment in Ward No.15. Even though petitioners were allotted work in Ward No.15, they never reported for work and instead, resorted to agitation and strike outside the Panchayath office. The decision to relocate the petitioners to Ward No.15 was taken in the wake of a series of complaints received from their co-workers, alleging misbehaviour and abusive conduct by the petitioners. It is contended that interference by this Court will defeat the very objective of the MGNREG Act, viz; to ensure 100 days of guaranteed wage employment to every household, whose adult member has volunteered to do unskilled manual work.

I find substantial merit in the final contention urged by the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat that, the complaint raised by the petitioners is not one to be decided in a writ petition under Article 226. The MGNREG Act, 2005 is enacted with the objective of enhancing the livelihood and security of the households in rural areas of the country, by providing at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in every financial year, to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. Under the Act, the State Government is bound to provide employment to an adult member from each family. The Panchayats at district, intermediate and village levels are the principal authorities for planning and implementation of the Schemes made under the Act. The responsibility of the Gram Panchayats, enumerated at Section 16 of the Act, include allocation of employment opportunities among the applicants and requiring them to report for work. Schedule II of the Act deals with conditions for guaranteed rural employment under a Scheme and minimum entitlement of labourers. Clause 18 of Schedule II stipulates that, as far as possible, the employment shall be provided within a radius of 5 Kms of the village where the applicant is residing. It is in that context that the representations were considered by the Block Programme Officer and the District Programme Officer and the Panchayat directed to grant employment to the petitioners within the 5 kilometers radius. The petitioners have no case that the allotment under Exts.P3 and P7 is beyond 5 kilometers of their residence. As such, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.

The mere fact that the complaints received from co-workers were taken into consideration by the Panchayat before allocating the petitioners to Ward No.15, is no reason for this Court to hold the re-allotment to be punitive. The fact that two among the workers who were also proposed to be allotted to ward No.15 are retained in Ward No.14 is also not reason enough to hold the allocation to be discriminatory, particularly when no serious complaint is seen raised against the workers retained in Ward No.14. In any event, the objective of the Act being to ensure employment to adult member of every household and to implement various developmental Schemes, interference by this Court, based on trivial issues, will defeat the very objective of the Act and scuttle the progress of the Schemes.

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.