MGNREGA_SAMEEKSHA

Governance and Process Challenges 63
and in Madhya Pradesh 23 per cent of the households
received payments within 15 days. 37
The CAG audit conducted in 2006 found there
were delays in payment in 213 GPs in 16 states
including, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand,
Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. 38
Field studies 39 and reports from state Governments
note the following broad reasons for the delays in
wage payment:
• Inadequate staff: Shortage of staff (often given
part-time responsibility) lead to late measurement
of works which translates into late payment
of wages. This lack of functionaries is a real
bottleneck in MGNREGA implementation, with
serious consequences, especially for its bottomup,
people-centred architecture. The shortage of
staff has had a serious impact on key parameters
like high-quality, people-centred planning
and implementation of works, availability of
employment on time, timely measurements
of works that are completed or in progress and
hence, timely payments. A field assessment
was undertaken in Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat,
Chhattisgarh and Odisha. Results from the
survey showed that in Bolangir and Nuapada
districts of Odisha, the block development
officers were given part-time responsibility of
MGNREGA. For a block of 140 villages, only
four to five Junior Engineers (JEs) were available,
two of whom were given additional responsibility
for the MGNREGA. 40 The CAG audit conducted
in 2006 found that there were no appointments
of full-time, dedicated programme officers in
102 blocks of the 26 audited states, of technical
assistants in 57 blocks and of dedicated Gram
Rozgar Sevaks (GRS) 41 in 303 GPs. 42
The problem of inadequate staff and delayed
measurements and payment gets further exacerbated
during peak seasons, when the demand for work is at
its highest.
• Irregular flow of funds: 43 The funds are allocated
to states and districts based on an initial demand,
at the beginning of the FY and subsequently
based on expenditure (district/block/GP should
have spent at least 60 per cent of the funds to
request for the next instalment). There can be
several time lags in this cycle; for instance, delay
in updating expenditure records, delay in placing
demand for additional fund by the district (which
travels through the state to the GoI) and scrutiny
of expenditure and release of funds by the GoI.
There may be further delay for the funds to reach
the GP or the field. The CAG Audit conducted in
2006 found that fund delays and procedural issues
were caused due to non submission of appropriate
documentation by blocks while applying for a
subsequent instalment of funds; 58 blocks did not
submit Utilisation Certificates of at least 60 per cent
of funds while applying for the next instalment. 44
Delay in payments was observed to be the biggest
perceived problem for beneficiaries, in a study
conducted across 12 states (see Figure 6.1).
Recognising that certain delays may be caused due
to the time lag between demands for funds from
districts and release of funds from the Centre, the
GoI instructed the states to set up State Funds in
FY 2009–10. These funds would allow for bulk
transfer (as per expenditure) of funds from the
Central Government to the State. Following this, the
State Governments can allocate funds to districts
as per demand and later re-allocate funds (in case
of unutilised funds) within the district without
involving the Central Government in the process.
MGNREGA 2.0 has carefully considered and
enacted further provisions for recruitment of
37
NSSO, Survey of MGNREGA, 2010–11.
38
CAG, Performance Audit Report No. 11, 2008.
39
Khera, ‘Wage Payment: Live without Pay’.
40
P. Ambasta, ‘MGNREGA and Rural Governance Reform: Growth and Inclusion through Panchayat’, Paper for International
Conferece on Dynamics of Rural Transformation in Emerging Economies.
41
Gram Rozgar Sevaks are functionaries deployed at the level of a GP to support MGNREGA implementation.
42
CAG, Performance Audit Report No. 11, 2008.
43
Khera, ‘Wage Payment: Live without Pay’.
44
CAG, Performance Audit Report No. 11, 2008.