Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Irregularities in implementation of national rural employment scheme: CAG audit report -Swati Mathur

Irregularities in implementation of national rural employment scheme: CAG audit report -Swati Mathur

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Apr 23, 2013   modified Modified on Apr 23, 2013
-The Times of India


LUCKNOW: The Comptroller and Auditor General of India tabled the second performance audit of the Mahatma Gandhi National Ru
ral Employment Guarantee Act
in Parliament on Tuesday.

The first performance audit was undertaken in 2007-08. The period of coverage of the first audit was February 2006 to March 2007. The present performance audit of the implementation of MGNREGA was taken up in response to a request from the ministry of rural development and covers the period from April 2007 to March 2012.

Implementation of the scheme was checked in 182 districts, 458 blocks and 3,848 gram panchayats of 28 states and four Union Territories.

Audit analysis of data related to the performance of the scheme showed significant decline in per rural household employment generation in the last two years. The per rural household employment declined from 54 days in 2009-10 to 43 days in 2011-12. There was also a substantial decline in the proportion of works completed in 2011-12. It was also observed that Bihar, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh which constituted 46 per cent of the rural poor accounted for only 20 per cent of the total funds released under Scheme. This indicated that the correlation between poverty levels and implementation of MGNREGA was not very high.

As per section 16(3) of the Act, gram panchayats were required to prepare the annual development plan on the basis of recommendations of the gram sabha. In 1,201 GPs (31 per cent of all test checked GPs) in 11 states and one UT, annual plans were either not prepared, or were prepared in an incomplete manner. In 14 states and one UT, 129.22 lakh works amounting to Rs. 1,26,961.11 crore were approved in the annual plans. Of these, only 38.65 lakh works (30 per cent of planned works) amounting to Rs. 27,792.13 crore were completed during the audit period, indicating significant inefficiencies in the implementation of the annual plans.

Though states were to notify schemes and rules for the implementation of the scheme, it was observed that despite the passage of seven years since the Act came into force, state governments of Haryana, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh (five states) did not formulate rules for carrying out provisions of the Act, as of March 2012. As many as 12 states and 2 UTs did not, also, formulate Information, Education and Communication (IEC) plans. Shortfalls in utilisation of IEC funds were also noticed. In a demand driven scheme like MGNREGS, awareness of beneficiary rights would be a critical factor in its success. The low level of IEC activities would have an adverse effect on the awareness levels of the beneficiaries and in turn prevent the beneficiaries from fully realizing their rights.

Governments of four states (Arunachal Pradesh, Kerala, Manipur and Tamil Nadu) had not appointed dedicated Gram Rozgar Sahayaks, who play a crucial role at gram panchayat level for implementing MGNREGS. Further, widespread vacancies of Gram Rozgar Sahayaks, were noticed in nine states. The vacancies ranged from 20 to 93 per cent.

The ministry relaxed all conditions and released a sum of Rs 1,960.45 crore in March, 2011 to the states, contravening norms of financial accountability. An amount of Rs 4,072.99 crore was released by the ministry during 2008-12 to states for use in the subsequent financial year, in contravention of budgetary provisions and General Financial Rules. Further, excess funds of Rs 2,374.86 crore were released by the ministry to six states, either due to wrong calculation or without taking note of the balances available with the states.

Job cards were not issued to 12,455 households in six states. Photographs on job cards represent an important control against fraud and misrepresentation. Photographs on 4.33 lakh job cards were not found pasted in seven states. There were multiple job cards in the name of the same person in 18,325 cases. Delays in issue of job cards in 12,008 cases ranging up to 51 months were noticed.

Delays in providing employment attract payment of unemployment allowance. It was observed that no unemployment allowance was paid in 47,687 cases, despite substantial delays in providing employment. Similarly, non-payment of wages of Rs 36.97 crore was noticed in 14 states. There were several cases of delayed payment of wages for which no compensation was paid.

Audit noted financial irregularities in the procedures for payment of wages or material. In eight states, there were cases of suspected misappropriation of funds of Rs 128.23 crore as no supporting vouchers relating to payments were available on record. Similarly, tampering with muster rolls was noticed in 10 states. Wages of Rs 3.84 crore were paid on suspected muster rolls. Engagement of same workers under different muster rolls at different locations for the same period was also observed.

Schedule I of the Act prescribes that the material component of the work should not exceed 40 per cent of the total work cost. In 12 states and one UT, cases of the material cost exceeding the prescribed ratio were noticed. The material cost exceeded the prescribed level by Rs 1,594.37 crore in the test checked cases.

In the test checked districts of 25 states/UTs, 1,02,100 inadmissible works amounting to Rs 2,252.43 crore were taken up. These inadmissible works included construction of earthen/kutcha roads, cement concrete roads, construction of raised platforms for cattle and other animals, construction of bathing ghats, etc. Works amounting to Rs. 4,070.76 crore were incomplete despite passage of significant time, rendering the expenditure unfruitful.

In 10 states and four UTs, the governments had not constituted Social Audit Units to facilitate the social audit forums and in 11 states and one UT, it was observed that significantly fewer social audits as compared to prescribed norms were conducted.

Monitoring at the central level was unsatisfactory. The Central Council could not fulfill its statutory mandate of establishing a central evaluation and monitoring system even after six years of its existence. The only monitoring activity carried out was in the form of 13 ad-hoc field visits to six states by the council members. No follow up action was taken on these visits by the council. There was shortfall between 82 and 100 per cent in inspection of works in 11 states.

Deficiencies related to both non-maintenance and incorrect maintenance of prescribed basic records were noticed in 18 to 54 per cent of the all test checked GPs, in various types of records. Widespread deficiencies in the maintenance of records restricted the process of proper verification of the outputs and outcomes of the scheme.

There were substantial differences between the data uploaded in the MIS and actual paper records maintained/information available with Directorate/District Programme Coordinator. Apart from the erroneous entries made in the database, a number of cases were noticed where the states did not entering data on a regular basis. Hence, the MIS data on physical and financial performance of the scheme was not reliable. In addition, the MIS suffered from faulty programming logic and missing validation controls. Cases of data manipulation, without any reference to basic records and without any apparent basis, were also noticed.

The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, (MGNREGA) was enacted with the objective of enhancing livelihood security in rural areas by providing at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in a financial year, to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. The act initially came into force in 200 districts with effect from 2 February 2006 and was extended to cover all the rural districts by 1 April 2008.


The Times of India, 23 April, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Irregularities-in-implementation-of-national-rural-employment-scheme-CAG-audit-report/articleshow/19693405.cms


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close