We hailed the Commisioner of Rural Development of Uttar Pradesh  for passing an order to release unemployment benefits to villagers to the tune of Rs 15 lakhs. Now Mr Kapil Kumar, the Block Development officer (BDO) has gone to High Court to say the commissioner cant pass such an order!  The High Court reaffirming Commisioner's authority has asked him to look into the complaints of the BDOs!  It appears that the BDOs are trying to confuse the issue by arguing that wages shouldnt be paid as people havent worked -- while what the commissioner ordered was UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS precisely because work wasnt provided by officers to people who applied!!  
          Read the high court's order!  |  Unemployment Benefits a first for UP

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

(Court No. 1)

Writ Petition No. 891 (M/B) of 2009

Kapil Kumar and others ... Petitioners

Versus

State of U.P. and others ... Respondents.

Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.
Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.

Heard Sri Sandeep Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Anuj Kudesia, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents.

The grievance raised by the petitioners, who are Block Development Officers and were appointed Programme Officers under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS), is to the effect that in pursuance of the complaint, a committee was constituted by the District Magistrate, in which Smt. Rambeti, wife of the beneficiary Jagannath alongwith one Ms. Richa Singh, who herself was the complainant, was made member of the said Committee and that on the basis of the report of the said Committee, the impugned orders have been passed issuing directives for making payment of wages to those persons, who were ineligible, or were otherwise not entitled for payment of such wages under the Scheme and this would incur a liability of rupees fifteen lacs also. The argument is that apart from the case of Jagannath, there are many persons, who have not worked for 100 days but they have been ordered to be paid for full 100 days. It is further submitted that there are certain persons, who have not worked at all but they have been ordered to be paid wages for 100 days and the persons, who are gainfully employed elsewhere, have also been directed to be paid wages under the aforesaid scheme and, therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.
An argument has also been raised that the Commissioner under the Scheme, could not have passed the order for making payment of wages to the said persons as the District Programme Coordinator (DPC) has already considered the matter and rejected the claim.

Sri Anuj Kudesia, learned State counsel, placing reliance upon the guideline 2.2.4(c) of the Guidelines issued under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, hereinafter referred to as the Act, says that the Commissioner is responsible for ensuring that all activities required to fulfil the objectives of the Act are carried out, and, therefore, the Commissioner was fully authorised to pass the impugned orders.

Another argument is that even if the Programme Officer rejects the application of an applicant, still the Commissioner could have exercised his power to ensure that the scheme is fully and properly implemented. Also he being the appellate authority, could have upset the order of the D.P.C.

We do not intend to enter into the questions raised, as we do not find any impropriety if the Commissioner, even in absence of an appeal, discharges his functions to see that the Scheme is fully implemented and in exercise of his powers, may issue such directives, as are necessary, to the officers who are responsible to implement the scheme and make payment of wages to the persons who have worked under the scheme.

We also leave it open to the authority concerned to consider the plea of the petitioner that the District Magistrate was not competent to form a committee as this should have been seen by the Commissioner himself.

The High Court would normally not entertain a petition where directions have been issued by a responsible officer for making payment of wages under some scheme, but we are informed that in this case, an amount of rupees fifteen lacs is actually to be paid to the persons, who otherwise may not be eligible, including the persons who are gainfully employed elsewhere, or have not worked for 100 days in full, or they have not worked at all. Allowing payment of wages to such persons out of the fund made available by the Central Government under the Scheme would cause loss to the public exchequer, and payment, if made, would be difficult to recover.

We further direct that the decision on the representation shall be taken within a maximum period of ten days from the date of its receipt and till the decision is taken, no further payment may be directed to be made under the impugned orders. The Commissioner shall ensure that all deserving persons, who are entitled for wages, are not deprived of wages because of any inter se disputes.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

28.1.2009
LN/-