Meghalaya High Court
Shri Foyzar Rahman vs State Of Meghalaya on 15 September, 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 139 of 2015
Shri Foyzar Rahman
S/o (L) Abdul Jalil
R/o Gomaijhora P.S. Phulbari,
West Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya. ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Government of Meghalaya
Represented by the Chief
Secretary of Meghalaya.
2. Deputy Commissioner &
District Programme Coordinator,
West Garo Hills, Meghalaya.
3. Project Director & Additional
Programme Coordinator (MGNREGS)
West Garo Hills, Meghalaya.
4. Block Development Officer
(B.D.O) & Programme Officer (MGNREGS),
Selsella, C&RD Block,
Selsella, West Garo Hills, Meghalaya.
5. Shri Wahidur Rahman Prodhani,
Secretary Village Employment Council (VEC) of
Gomaijhora village, PS Phulbari,
West Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya. ... Respondents
BEFORE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH Present Mr. A. Khan ... Counsel for Petitioner Mr. S Sen Gupta ... Counsel for Respondents Ms. D. Mawthoh Date of Hearing ... 15.09.2016 Date of Order ... 15.09.2016 BY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P.VAISH (ORAL) The petitioner, Mr. Foyzar Rahman has filed the present petition praying, inter-alia, the following relief: WP(C) No. 139 of 2015 Page 1 of 5
"IN THE PREMISES aforesaid it humbly prayed that Your Lordship may be pleased to admit this writ petition, call for the records and issue rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the payment of wage should not be made as per the minimum wage rate i.e. Rs. 145 per days work to job card holder for their 14 days of work, upon cause or causes being shown and upon hearing the parties may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 5 to make payment to the petitioner as well as other job card holder for 14 days of work at the minimum rate of wage of Rs. 145 per day and or pass such necessary order/orders Your Lordship may deem fit and proper."
2. Briefly stating, the case of the petitioner is that in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section-4 of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (NREGA), Meghalaya Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MREGS) 2006 was notified. The petitioner was issued job card under MREGS scheme of the village for execution of the project construction of road by respondent No. 4. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 submitted muster roll of 44 days work of the job card holder to the respondent No. 4 for payment of wages. Respondent No. 4 as per the muster roll submitted by respondent No. 5 has credited the amount for 14 days wages in the account of Village Employment Council (VEC) of respondent No. 5 at the minimum rate of wage of Rs. 145/- per day which was withdrawn by respondent No. 5. However, respondent No. 5 had paid the wages less than the minimum wages at the rate of Rs. 145/- per day for 14 days work.
3. It is also stated by the petitioner that in the first week of May, 2015, respondent No. 5 withdrew the amount for another 14 days wages for payment to be made to all the job card holders at the rate of Rs. 145/- per day. However, respondent No. 5 was paying less amount of Rs. 1,000/- to some of the job card holders instead of Rs. 2030/- for their legitimate dues for 14 days of completed work.
4. Being aggrieved by the denial of wages at the minimum rate, without assigning any reason the petitioner has filed the present petition.
WP(C) No. 139 of 2015 Page 2 of 5
5. Respondent No. 4 has filed an affidavit of Shri Pittingson R Sangma, Block Development Officer/Programme Officer (MGNREGS). The relevant paras of the affidavit read as under:
"5. That the statements made in paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Writ Petition is hereby denied. The humble Answering Deponent begs to state that an amount of Rs.9,72,920-/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs, Seventy Two Thousand, Nine Hundred and Twenty) only was sanctioned to Gomaijhora (M) VEC, for construction of Road vide Order dated 09-01-2013 and also sanctioned additional amount of Rs. 8,16,900/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs, Sixteen Thousand, Nine Hundred) only, dated 10-12-2013 for 44 (Forty four) days work was sanctioned under MGNREGS Scheme, at the rate of Rs. 145/- per day for single job card holder and it is not the fact that the Respondent No.4 referred the matter to Lok Adalat, but Respondent No.3 referred the dispute arose between the Job Card Holders and Secretary, Gomaijhora (M) VEC, and the matter was settled in Lok Adalat and thereafter the previous VEC Committee was dissolved and fresh election was held on 25.03.2015, in which the Respondent No.5 was elected as a Secretary, Gomaijhora (M) VEC, by the Job Card Holders and approved the VEC vide Memo No. Sel/ Aptt/ MG/ MGNREGS/ 2015/03-A, dated 01-04- 2015 by the answering Deponent and thereafter no work order was sanctioned to the said VEC.
6. That the statements made in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 are hereby denied. The answering Deponent begs to state that after receiving the complaints from the Public and Job Card holders, he directed the Additional Programme Officer, to enquire into the allegation for non receiving of wages by Job Card Holders of the said VEC however, the Complainant groups has not come forward and cooperated with the Enquiry Officer, as a result of which the enquiry could not be conducted. And thereafter some of the Complainants approached the Deponent and requested to pay their due/wages directly to the Job Card Holders, however, their request was rejected on the ground that it is contrary to the prescribed procedures and the Money has already been deposited in the Bank Account of Gomaijhora (M) VEC, and directed the Job Card Holders to take their wages directly from the Secretary, Gomaijhora (M) VEC. It is further stated that the answering Deponent called the Secretary of the said VEC, to his office and to explain the matter, however, the Respondent No.5 informed that all the Job Card Holders received their wages except 11 (eleven) persons/Job Card holders who did not come forward to take their wages, however, their wages are ready for payment as per prescribed rate of Rs. 145/- per day for 14 (fourteen) days, amounting to Rs. 2030/- (Rupees Two Thousand and thirty) only per head and it indicates that the Petitioner is on fault and Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed for mispresenting the facts before the Hon'ble High Court."
WP(C) No. 139 of 2015 Page 3 of 5
6. An affidavit of Shri Wahidur Rahman Prodhani, respondent No. 5 has been filed. The relevant para-5 of the affidavit reads as under:
"5. That the statements made in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the Writ Petition is hereby denied. The humble answering Deponent begs to state that the Respondent No.4, BDO & Programme Officer, MGNREGS (Meghalaya) Selsella C & R.D Block, was pleased to sanction an amount of Rs. 9,72,920/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs, Seventy Two Thousand, Nine Hundred and Twenty) only to Gomaijhora (M) VEC, for construction of Road vide Order dated 09-01-2013 and also sanctioned additional amount of Rs. 8,16,900/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs, Sixteen Thousand, Nine Hundred) only, dated 10-12-2013 altogether for 44 (Fourteen) days work was sanctioned. It is further stated that first 14 (fourteen) days work had been completed w.e.f, 19-01- 2013 to 23-01-2013 and wages was drawn and paid @ Rs. 145/- per day to Job Card Holders in full, secondly also another 6(six) days work had been completed, w.e.f, 24-01-2013 to 29-01-2013 and wages was withdrawn and paid, who actually worked for construction of road and again 8(eight) days work also had completed, w.e.f, 11-12-2013 to 18-12-2013 and paid to Job Card Holders and lastly 16 (Sixteen) days work had started on 19-12- 2013 and completed on 3rd January 2014, but payment of wages was late due to non-sanction of wages by Respondent No.4, but subsequently it has been Sanctioned and accordingly paid except for 11 (Eleven) persons/Job Card Holders including the Petitioner as they intentionally did not come forward to receive the wages, though verbal request was made to them, which was reflected in the Payment Register, however, payment of Wages of will be paid @ Rs. 145/- per day to all the eleven Job card holders when they come forward to receive it."
7. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.
8. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a job card holder and the respondent No. 5 has not paid wages at the rate of minimum wages of Rs. 145/- per day for 14 days of work.
9. Mr. S Sen Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that respondent No. 4 has sanctioned an amount at the rate of Rs. 145/- per day for each job card holder and an affidavit of Mr. P.R. Sangma, Block Development Officer and Programme Officer (MGNREGS) has been filed. Learned counsel for WP(C) No. 139 of 2015 Page 4 of 5 respondents No. 1 to 4 further submits that the petitioner may approach the respondent No. 5 and collect the difference of minimum wages which was payable to the petitioner.
10. Ms. D. Mawthoh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 submits that an amount of Rs. 9, 72,920/- was sanctioned to Gomaijhora (M) VEC vide letter dated 09.01.2013 and amount of Rs. 8,16,900/- was sanctioned on 10.12.2013 under MGNREGS scheme at the rate of Rs. 145/- per day for each job card holder. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 also submits that respondent No. 5 is ready to pay the difference of minimum wages to the petitioner, who is one of the job card holders.
11. Mr. A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is satisfied with the aforesaid submissions and the present petition may be disposed of.
12. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, the respondent No. 5 is directed to pay the difference of amount of minimum wages to the petitioner for 14 days of work within 4(four) weeks from today.
13. The petitioner may approach the Secretary Village Employment Council (VEC) of Gomaijhora village and make a request for release of the difference of minimum wages for 14 days.
14. With the above observations, the present petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE 15th September, 2016 V. Lyndem WP(C) No. 139 of 2015 Page 5 of 5