Jharkhand High Court
Manrega Mazdoor Sangharsh Samiti vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 24 September, 2019
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.-1186 of 2014
Manrega Mazdoor Sangharsh Samiti, Pakur through its President
namely Subodh Mandal ...Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Rural Development Department,
New Delhi
2. The State of Jharkhand
3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi
4. The Manrega Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Ranchi
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur
6. Block Development Officer, Pakur Block, District- Pakur
...Respondents
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner :- Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate For the Union of India :- Mr. Devanand Kumar, CGC Ms. Bakshi Vibha, Sr. Panel Counsel For the State :- Mr. Vinod Kumar Sahu, GP-III Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GP-III Order No.-07 Dated: 24.09.2019 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the appropriate authorities to pay the due wages for the work done by the labourers/members of the petitioner- Manrega Mazdoor Sangharsh Samiti, Pakur (hereinafter to be referred as "Samiti") in the MGNREGA scheme for years 2009-10 and 2010-11 in the district of Pakur.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the labourers/members of the petitioner-Samiti worked under the MGNREGA scheme in the district of Pakur for the financial years 2009-10 and 2010-11 and the part payment of their wages were made under few schemes, yet the actual payment in relation to the work done in the entire schemes under the MGNREGA remained unpaid by the respondent authorities which have not yet been released to them despite several representations filed by the President of the petitioner-Samiti.
3. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 5 on 25.02.2016 annexing a copy of joint inquiry report dated 21.02.2015. On perusal of the said inquiry 2 report, it appears that there were nine different schemes under MGNREGA for the relevant years in the district of Pakur i.e. Scheme Nos. 58/2010-11, 18/2010-11, 53/2010-11, 54/2010-11, 57/2010-11, 60/2010-11, 110/2009-10, 61/2010-11 and 105/2010-11 in which various irregularities were found including non-maintenance of muster rolls and payment records, irregularity in making data entry, irregularities in maintaining measurement books as well as non-opening of the required record relating to the scheme itself. It has however been averred in the said supplementary counter affidavit that not a single person has come forward to claim that he was the labourer who worked in the respective schemes and did not receive the due wages.
4. In response to the said statements made in the supplementary counter affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Annxure-15 and Annxure-16 to the supplementary affidavit dated 14.12.2015 filed by the petitioner and submits that the advice notes issued to labourers were put to the knowledge of the concerned authority, however the due payment has not been made to them.
5. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as on going through the counter affidavit(s) filed on behalf of the respondents, the Court is of the prima facie view that there has been large scale irregularity in execution of the work as well as payment of due wages to the labourers in relation to the aforesaid nine schemes under the MGNREGA.
6. The stand of the respondents particularly the respondent nos. 3 and 5 taken in the supplementary counter affidavit dated 25.02.2016 that no one is coming forward to claim the due payment for the work done under the said schemes, cannot be accepted. The inquiry report dated 21.02.2015 itself reveals the manner in which the schemes were implemented. Hence, the Court passes following directions:
(i) The respondent no.5- Deputy Commissioner, Pakur is directed to forthwith get an F.I.R. lodged in relation to the aforesaid nine schemes implemented in the years 2009-10 and 2010-11, if not already lodged.3
(ii) (a) The respondent no.-5 is also directed to constitute a special committee with regard to the payment of dues to the labourers who worked under the aforesaid schemes.
(ii) (b) The members of the petitioner-Samiti/labourers who claim to have worked under the said schemes shall approach the committee so constituted by the respondent no. 5 with the details of their respective claims for the due payment. On receipt of the said claims, the special committee after verifying the relevant records shall assess the due amount to be paid to the labourers individually under the said schemes. If it is found that the members of Samiti/labourers are entitled for payment of certain dues in form of wages under the said schemes, the same shall be released in their favour on due identification.
(ii) (c) The entire exercise of considering the claims, assessment of the dues and the payment thereof to the members of the Samiti/labourers shall be completed within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
7. The writ petition is thus disposed of with aforesaid directions.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh