Status of NREGA in PACS States

Status of NREGA Implementation
Grassroots Learning and Ways Forward
1st Monitoring Report
Prepared by Samarthan – Centre for Development Support
With Support from
Poorest Area Civil Society (PACS) Programme

Preface
A longstanding struggle of social activists demanding right to life resulted in the first round of
success though the enactment of National Rural Employment Guarantee (NREG) Act. The Act
was passed on 5th September 2005 and came into force in February 2006. The NREG
Programme got launched in the 200 poorest and backward districts of twenty seven states of
India.
The programme is seen as a significant opportunity by the Government as well as civil society
organizations to transform rural economy in selected districts/ states as it guarantees 100 days
employment per family, and provides adequate resources for the improvement of
infrastructure including productive assets of the village. The initial three quarters since
operationalisation of the programme have not only been invested in building systems and
procedures, but also developing operational details. Further, many states have moved towards
effectively implementing the programme and generating employment for the poor families. The
process of implementation has therefore generated ground level data at the household, village
and panchayat levels about the initial bottlenecks and operational hurdles.
The Poorest Areas Civil Society (PACS) Programme supports over 600 civil society
organizations, working in the 108 poorest and most backward districts across six states of
India, to enable the poor to realise their rights and entitlements more effectively and
sustainably. This group of organizations represents a network with a large outreach and
potential for influencing both community response and policy.
The introduction of the NREGA has provided the PACS Programme an opportunity to align to
the requirements of the NREGP and bring in processes that would facilitate implementation of
the Act in its true form and spirit. As such the PACS Programme has invested in awareness
rising on both the NREG Act as well as the state specific Acts in the PACS areas. Since the
inception of the Act, the PACS programme has instituted processes for capacity building of the
partner civil society organizations for enabling conduct of social audits as well documentation
of evidences of discrimination as well as ground realities of registrations and employment
given under the tenets of the Act.
The primary purpose of bringing out the status of NREGA implementation in selective PACS
states is not to point out shortcomings, since it is evident, that the NREGA implementation is in
its nascent stage. The larger aim of the report is to build joint ownership of the learning’
emerging from the report by the civil society and the government to improve the strategy of
support at the grassroots. Additionally, it aims to influence the programme design and
operational areas in respective states and at the national level by establishing regular dialogue
process with the senior executive machinery especially in context of entitlement access by the
poor.
The PACS programme is committed to bringing out a six monthly monitoring report on a
regular basis. The monitoring report will be utilized by the PACS programme to improve
strategies of civil society engagement for affecting NREGA implementation in PACS intervened
panchayats.
I am extremely thankful to Samarthan for taking responsibility of bringing out this report. I
would also like to place my sincere word of thanks to the partner NGOs, citizens, facilitating
agencies and government officials for providing relevant data and insights.
We look forward to receiving your feedback on our endeavour.
Kiran Sharma
Programme Director
Poorest Areas Civil Society (PACS) Programme
Acknowledgement
NREGA is a unique Act which recognizes the legitimate role of Panchayats in addressing
their fundamental duty as expressed in the 73th Constitutional Amendment of providing
“economic development and social justice” in their area. The recognition of PRI as the
principal agency of implementation under NREGA has opened up enormous opportunities
for decentralizing development and respecting local solutions to local livelihood challenges.
Samarthan has over the last 10 years worked towards strengthening participatory
development and governance processes in Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh. Over the
last one year, the focus has been concentrated on influencing NREGA implementation and
affecting application of Right to Information. Therefore, we were most willing to take the
responsibility for bringing out Status Report on NREGA implementation for the selective
PACS intervened states. PACS programme has also focused energies around NREGA
implementation as a large number of NREGS districts converge PACS intervened areas.
We are thankful to PACS for reposing their trust on Samarthan to bring out National
Report on NREGA implementation. We worked on the report in a very tight schedule
along with the period of holidays of Diwali and Eid and many other constraints. Therefore,
it was a difficult trade off between bringing out a perfect report meeting the standards of
monitoring on the one hand, and concentrating on bringing out qualitative grassroots
experiences as patterns of difficulties encountered across the states for timely redressal of
issues and building appropriate strategies for implementation, on the other. We opted for
the second option of bringing out relatively less perfect yet timely report and I hope that
you will bear with us for the shortcomings, if any.
We express our thanks to the government officials as well as their official data sources to
help us access data and information relevant for the report. We express our sincere
thanks to the field level civil society organizations of PACS states, state level resource
organizations, communication agencies and state representatives of PACS programme for
providing us necessary data and documents helping us build state specific perspective. I
am also putting on record the effort of Samarthan team, programme as well as support,
for their hard work and commitment to work on the report relentlessly. We also
appreciate contribution of Write Solutions, the communication agency of PACS
programme, M.P for providing editorial support at a very short notice.
We look forward for the continued co-operation and support from all of you.
Yogesh Kumar
Executive Director
Samarthan – Centre for Development Support
Table of Contents
1. Background ....................................................................................................................1
2. Emerging salient arguments on NREGA ...............................................................................2
3. Objectives of the Study ....................................................................................................3
4. Methodology ...................................................................................................................3
4.1. Sample/Outreach .......................................................................................................3
4.2. Issues covered...........................................................................................................4
4.3. Methods of data collection ...........................................................................................4
4.5 Limitations .................................................................................................................5
5. Report Card on NREGA Performance ...................................................................................6
5.1. Government Perspective on NREGA .................................................................................6
5.1.1. Number of Rural Households Covered Under the Programme .........................................6
5.1.2. Registration and Job Cards Issued..............................................................................6
5.1.3. Employment Provided Against Applications Given .........................................................7
5.1.4. State-Wise Funds Released .......................................................................................8
5.1.5. Release of Resources ...............................................................................................9
5.1.6. Expenditure Pattern .................................................................................................9
5.1.6. Key Findings from Government Data ........................................................................ 10
5.2. NREGA from Media’s View ............................................................................................ 11
5.2.1. Media Response at the time of enactment ................................................................. 11
5.2.2. Media Response on NREGA programme implementation .............................................. 12
5.2.3. State-wise highlights on performance ....................................................................... 13
5.3. Civil Society Perspective on NREGA ............................................................................... 13
5.3.1. Awareness of the programme .................................................................................. 14
5.3.2. Applications for Job Cards ....................................................................................... 15
5.3.3. Availability of Job Cards.......................................................................................... 17
5.3.4. Payment of wages ................................................................................................. 19
5.3.5. Provision of worksite facilities .................................................................................. 20
5.3.6. Unemployment allowance ....................................................................................... 20
5.3.7. Major Findings from Field Data ................................................................................ 21
5.4. Citizens’ Perspective on NREGA ..................................................................................... 22
5.4.1. Uttar Pradesh........................................................................................................ 23
5.4.2. Madhya Pradesh .................................................................................................... 24
5.4.3. Bihar ................................................................................................................... 25
5.4.4. Maharashtra ......................................................................................................... 25
5.4.5. Chhattisgarh ......................................................................................................... 26
5.4.6. Jharkhand ............................................................................................................ 27
6. Institutional Hurdles - Panchayat Perspective..................................................................... 28
6.1. Envisaged role of panchayats in NREGA ....................................................................... 28
6.2. State’s preparedness in handling the National Act- locally .............................................. 29
6.3. Unequal distribution of funds and the resource utilization in districts ................................ 30
6.4. Top down implementation drive adversely affecting local planning ................................... 30
6.5. Inadequate flexibility in guidelines for addressing local issues ......................................... 33
6.6. Hurdles of technical clearance in Gram Panchayat projects ............................................. 34
6.7. Inadequate support in developing sound technical estimates of civil works ....................... 35
6.8. Unfair technical evaluation of the civil works done......................................................... 36
6.9. Delayed departmental response/permission affects Panchayat’s performance.................... 37
6.10. State’s response on grassroots difficulties of Panchayats .............................................. 37
6.11. Positive examples of NREGA..................................................................................... 38
7. Ways forward................................................................................................................ 40
Annexure ......................................................................................................................... 44
Data From NREGA Website............................................................................................... 44
Sample villages for the Study ........................................................................................... 46
Partner Organisations Involved in the Study ....................................................................... 49
References ....................................................................................................................... 50
List of abbreviations
APL -Above Poverty Line

BPL -Below Poverty Line
BREGS -Bihar Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
CGREGS -Chhattisgarh Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
CM -Chief Minister
CSOs -Civil Society Organisations
DFID -Department for International Development (United Kingdom’s)
EAS -Employment Assurance Scheme
EBC -Extremely Backward Caste
GoB -Government of Bihar
GoCG -Government of Chattisgarh
GoI -Government of India
GoJ -Government of Jharkhand
GoMah -Government of Maharashtra
GoMP -Government of Madhya Pradesh
GoUP -Government of Uttar Pradesh
GP -Gram Panchayat
GS -Gram Sabha
JREGS -Jharkhand Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
JRY -Jawahar Rozgar Yojana
MC -Management Consultant
MEAL -Monitoring Evaluation and Learning
MPREGS -Madhya Pradesh Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
MREGS -Maharashtra Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
NREGA -National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
NREP -National Rural Employment Programme
OBC -Other Backward Caste
PACS -Poorest Area Civil Society
PRI -Panchayati Raj Institutions
RD -Rural Development
RO -Resource Organisation
SC -Scheduled Caste
SGRY -Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana
ST -Scheduled Tribe
UPREGS -Uttar Pradesh Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
1. Background
Across the world governments have made promises that have rarely been kept. India is no
exception and its governments have routinely announced policies and schemes that had
no relation with available resources resulting in denial of basic services to citizens and the
non-fulfilment of several goals. However this was also partly due to the inability of civil
society organizations to pressurize their state governments effectively in this regard.
India signed the Millennium Declaration in September 2000, which calls for the eradication
of extreme poverty and hunger by halving the number of poor people living on less than a
dollar a day and those who suffer from hunger. Thus, the Government of India recognized
these goals as a legitimate policy commitment. Further, the Common Minimum
Programme of the United Progressive Alliance government came up with commitments
that the state had to make to improve the situation of the poor. These commitments were
recognized by the Planning Commission as a national common minimum programme to
mobilize resources for their implementation. Further, a citizens' charter was formulated by
civil society activists. The UPA Government passed the National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act 2005. The Act provides employment guarantee to every rural household for
100 days in a year. Thus, it is not a programme and differs from other schemes because it
gives the rural poor the right to demand that they be given a job or unemployment
allowance.
Salient Features of the Act
Wages to be paid every week not later than a fortnight

In case of any delay in the payment of wages, labourers entitled to compensation
as per the Payment of Wages Act
No gender bias permitted
Provisions made for compensation and treatment in case of injury and for on-site
safe drinking water, care of small children, periods of rest and a first-aid box
Contractors and labour displacing machines banned
At least 60 per cent of the expenditure under any project to be on wages.
At least 50 per cent of the projects, in terms of value, to be implemented through
the gram panchayats which must prepare a development plan
The programme officer to responsible for the implementation of the employment
guarantee programme in the block.
The programme’s efficacy is based on the logic of using the productive capacity of
ordinary rural folk to build and nurture assets, while simultaneously alleviating the
problem of chronic unemployment and poverty. The Act provides an opportunity to build
rural infrastructure through watershed development, restoration of water bodies such as
tanks and canals, activities aimed at forestry, land development, and soil erosion and
flood control, and construction of roads and institutional facilities. Anyone willing and able
to perform unskilled manual labour at the statutory minimum wage can make a claim,
1
which must be met by the local administration within 15 days failing which an
unemployment allowance must be provided.
Rights of Citizens
Adult members of every rural household who are willing to do casual manual work
at the statutory minimum wage may apply to the gram panchayat for registration
Registration valid for a period not less than five years, and renewable
Employment to be provided to every registered person within 15 days of receipt of
an application
Applications to be for at least 14 days of continuous work.
Gram panchayat to accept valid applications and issue a dated receipt to the
applicant
Applicants provided with work to be notified in writing
Employment to be provided within a radius of 5 km. If work is provided beyond 5
km, it is to be provided within the block, and the labourers paid 10 per cent of the
daily minimum wages extra
The impetus for the NREGA came from two sources. The first comprised of social
movements such as the Right to Food that had been agitating for ending hunger by
providing employment guarantees to the poor. This demand was supported by various civil
society movements such as the Right to Information that incorporated such demands in its
wider framework. The second and more direct influence came from the three-decade-long
track record of the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) in Maharashtra. Evaluation
studies of the Maharashtra EGS showed that the programme had the following strengths1:
Reduced extreme levels of deprivation among the poorest sections

Accounted for between one-tenth and one-third of the number of days of
employment of rural workers
Reduced migration to urban areas
Stabilized employment in the off-peak season
Higher participation of women
Based on these influences, the government enacted the NREGA Act in September 2005.
The law is being implemented in 200 of the poorest districts in this initial phase guiding
state governments to develop NREG schemes. The schemes developed by the States reach
out to 200 districts will be termed as NREGS in this report. The scheme is expected to
cover the entire country within five years.
2. Emerging salient arguments on NREGA

Critics of the NREGA have focussed on two sets of issues: one, that it is too expensive
and, two, that corruption will prevent its success. The pro-market liberalisers view the
NREGA as a dangerous piece of legislation that threatens to snowball India's fiscal deficit
out of control. However, economist Mihir Shah holds the view that it could actually 'crowd-
in' private investment and lay the foundation for non-inflationary growth in the medium-
term.2 According to Shah, the capacity of the agricultural sector to absorb labour has
1
Sridhar, V. 2005.’Empowering the rural poor’, Frontline, Vol. 22, Issue 19, Sep 10-23
2
Shah, Mihir. 2004. ‘National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: A Historic Opportunity’, EPW, December 11, 2004
2
declined drastically due to a decline in the per capita output of agriculture, which calls for
a massive increase in public investment in rural India in the direction of sustainable
environmental regeneration. The future of agriculture depends on restoring the health of
the many 'public goods' that private agriculture critically depends on.3
The other issue of corruption can be dealt through social mobilization by grass roots
organizations. As Jean Dreze says, ‘legislation alone will not guarantee employment,
continuous mobilisation is required’.4 The Act empowers citizens to play an active role in
the implementation of employment guarantee schemes, through gram sabhas, social
audit, participatory planning and other activities. In fact the real significance of the act is
directly proportionate to the extent and manner in its provisions are creatively pushed to
their limits by the mobilization of the disadvantaged. The NREGA can become a major new
instrument for galvanising panchayat raj institutions in India.5
Various stakeholders are closely monitoring the act and several surveys are being carried
out to assess its implementation on the ground. There are various reports that point out
the areas where there is scope for improvement.
3. Objectives of the Study
To review the current status of implementation of NREGA in PACS intervened states

To identify emerging strengths and weaknesses for wider dialogue for
improvements
To evolve strategies for affecting implementation of the programme as a joint
initiative of the government, civil society and the Panchayati Raj institutions
4. Methodology
4.1. Sample/Outreach
Primary data was collected directly during the NREGA week that was observed in PACS
states during 3-9 July, 2006 as well as through a schedule that was handed out later. The
NREGA week covered 6 PACS states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Maharashtra,
Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh. In Bihar, the campaign covered 1000 villages spread
across the poorest districts. Besides, the CSOs were successful in filing 50,000 application
forms, mostly of the Dalits and landless. In Jharkhand, the campaign was spread over 550
villages in 20 districts. In Maharashtra, the PACS campaign covered 200 villages in four
districts. It covered a population of around 1, 20,000 while in Madhya Pradesh and
Chattisgarh the campaign covered 420 villages in 11 districts. The NREGA week generated
tremendous field level experiences. However no structured format in data collection was
prescribed.
Since the data collected during the NREGA week was not on a structured format, a
schedule was prepared containing a list of questions on the implementation of NREGA,
which was distributed to selected CSOs to generate data from the Panchayats and the
3
Shah, 2004
4
Lakshman, Nirmala. 2006. ‘Employment guarantee — signs of transformation’, The Hindu, Thursday, May 11
5
Shah, 2004
3
villages. Random sampling was used in choosing the panchayats. The schedule primarily
comprised of closed questions though a few open ended questions also existed to record
the opinions and suggestions of the people. This additional data was also collected from 6
PACS states covering 87 panchayats and 107 villages.
4.2. Issues covered

The issues covered by the structured schedule applied in 107 Panchayats awee: works
completed under NREGA, job card registration and availability, average payments daily,
frequency of payments and reasons for delay (if any), distance of worksite from the village
and provision of worksite facilities as given by the law, level of satisfaction with field
personnel, duration of work, work related injuries and any comments regarding the law or
its implementation. High quality data was generated on the above issues and other
pertinent areas of concern in NREGA week reports, people’s tribunals and oral testimonies
of citizens and Panchayat representatives.
4.3. Methods of data collection

Both primary and secondary sources of data were used. Both included qualitative and
quantitative data. Primary quantitative data was obtained through the schedules that were
delivered to the people affected by the act through the PACS partners with volunteers
recording the responses. These schedules covered a period from August to October 2006.
Primary qualitative data was obtained through direct interactions. Case studies were
obtained through partner NGOs in the field as well as through the public hearing on
NREGA organised in PACS states. Direct experiences were also obtained through the
NREGA Yatras in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, which mobilised several thousand
people in both states.
Further, there were direct interactions with officials and affected groups. Both the PACS
partners as well as the staff of Samarthan met officers to gain their observations and
reactions regarding the law. The PACS partners met the lower level officers to gain an
understanding of the issues involved in the implementation of the act. Further, a meeting
of Sarpanches from several districts in Madhya Pradesh was organized at the office of
Samarthan in October 2006. The Sarpanches were made aware of the provisions of the
act following which they described the lapses in implementation.
Secondary sources primarily comprised of qualitative data. These included articles and
news reported in the print and electronic media about the rationale and efficacy of the act
along with a critical look on the implementation. Such reports covered a variety of states
and helped to understand issues that were common across the spectrum. Further,
voluntary organizations recently organized the NREGA week in the first week of July in
which they attempted to raise the awareness of the people and rate the efforts of
governments to implement the act. The reports on the initiatives taken during the week
were another rich source of information and allowed a comparison of states as far as
implementation of the programme was concerned. PACS partners working in villages also
provided crucial insights into the reality on the ground.
Quantitative data came through information on the NREGA put on the websites of state
governments. Some of the state governments were proactive enough in putting relevant
information on their initiatives on the internet but in most cases the information was
either absent or not up to date.
4
4.5 Limitations
The official government data available on the official website was not updated.
Therefore, only data until August could be incorporated in the report.
The NREGA Week and awareness campaigns were undertaken without a structured
format of reporting. State level NREGA Week reports used different formats making
synthesis difficult.
Sample questionnaire was supposed to be administered to 50 panchayats in each
state by 5 CSOs in each region. All could not fill this and the desired level of details
could not be attained.
It was difficult to gather any data from the state officials other than what was
available from the website. Officials felt that all the relevant information was
available on the website even though this was not the case.
5
5. Report Card on NREGA Performance
5.1. Government Perspective on NREGA

The data available at the URL www.nrega.nic.in till August 2006 was analysed to
understand the macro perspective on implementation of the National Employment
Guarantee Act. Though there are 27 states where NREGP is being implemented, the
present study analyses the situation in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra,
Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Bihar, which are the key intervened states of PACS
programme.
5.1.1. Number of Rural Households Covered Under the Programme

The six states under study have
106 districts where NREGP is being Percentage of Rural Households in the Six Selected States
implemented. In all, there are Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra
12% Uttar Pradesh
more than 3-crore rural households
12%
29%
in these states. Amongst the

states, Bihar has the maximum
Jharkhand
12%
number of districts (23) under

NREGP. The details of the number
of districts covered under NREGP Chattisgarh
are mentioned below. It is worth 6%
mentioning here that Bihar has Bihar

declared all districts of the state 29%
under the scheme. While 23

districts will be supported by the Union Government, the Government of Bihar will support
the remaining 15. Amongst the six states, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh account for the largest
percentage of rural households, while Chattisgarh has the lowest number of rural
households (as compared to the cumulative figure of the six states).
5.1.2. Registration and Job Cards Issued

Of the total rural
Registred Households Vs Job Cards Issued households in NREGP
districts of states under
45.00 42.81
41.44 41.40 study, 52.8%
40.00
households have applied
No. of Households (in Lakhs)
35.00
to be registered under
30.00
24.02
26.94
24.64
the scheme. Of this,
25.00
67.4% families have
been issued job cards.
20.00
18.79
16.97
15.35
15.00
10.72
12.05
10.95 Though these figures
10.00
look impressive, a
5.00
general impression from
0.00
Bihar Chattisgarh Jharkhand Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Utttar Pradesh the field is that people
No. of Registered Households
States
No. of Job Cards Issued
have not really applied
for registration. Rather,
the panchayats have carried out registrations on their own and issued job cards. It was
6
seen in some panchayats of districts in Madhya Pradesh that 100% families have been
registered under the scheme. The high percentage of registration in Madhya Pradesh is
also due to the fact that the government has taken into account the entire list of
households prepared during the BPL survey in 2003. This fails the purpose of registration
to an extent. The purpose of registering families for the scheme is to ensure that only
deserving (or eligible/poor) families get job cards and these are not misused. As a result,
in Madhya Pradesh today, most families in NREGA districts are registered and there are
more job cards than are actually required!
In Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, it was observed that the unit of family is defined by
chullah’s. Thus, a couple living in their parents house will also be considered a family if
they have a separate chullah. All such families have been taken into account for the
purpose of implementation of this scheme. All families which are registered will be allotted
job cards. The table below shows that Madhya Pradesh has been a leading state in the
distribution of job cards to registered households.
In Maharashtra, only 26.4% registered households have received job cards. In Madhya
Pradesh and Chattisgarh, it was seen that while job cards have been prepared and
distributed to a large proportion of registered families, these documents are not being
used properly. In most work sites visited, it was noted that job cards are not being filled.
This will defeat the very purpose of issuing job cards. The practice of registering all
households and issuing job cards to everybody in the village is self-defeating because
there are chances of misuse of those cards which will not be used and there are chances
that the deserving families will be left out. Misuse of the cards may be by filling up of fake
attendance on muster rolls or lending job cards to the poor families to work on their behalf
on 50% wage payment.
It was also noted that proper guidelines were not being followed in issuing job cards. In
Bihar, for instance, several job cards were issued without any number on them. In Madhya
Pradesh, Chattisgarh and Bihar, photographs have not yet been pasted onto the job cards.
In some districts of Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar, it was seen that villagers were
required to pay money – from Rs 20 to Rs 200 - for getting job cards.
E m p lo y m e n t D e m a n d e d V s E m p lo y m e n t P r o v id e d
5.1.3. Employment
Provided Against 2 5 .0 0
Applications
Given 2 0 .0 0 1 9 .1 3
1 8 .0 5 1 7 .9 2
1 6 .8 4
No. of persons (in Lakhs)
Government data 1 5 .0 0
available till
August, 2006, 1 0 .0 0
reveals that of the 5 .3 3 5 .0 5

total cases where
5 .0 1 5 .0 1
5 .0 0
employment was 1 .6 5 1 .6 2 1 .9 3 1 .8 3
demanded, 0 .0 0
almost 95% B ih a r C h a t t is g a r h J h a rk h a n d M a d h y a P ra d e s h
S ta te s
M a h a ra s h tra U ttta r P ra d e s h
people were given

employment.
E m p lo y m e n t D e m a n d e d E m p lo y m e n t P r o v id e d
7
Though this data may seem impressive, it can also be misleading. It has been observed in
all the states under study that people are not actually applying or demanding jobs as a
right. Invariably, in all the states, the works being undertaken by panchayats and other
agencies are being carried out like any other developmental work. People are being
absorbed simply because both resources as well work are available in the village.
Therefore, one cannot say for sure if employment is being provided as a guarantee as
there is no explicit demand by job card holders are a right for employment.
The real challenge would come some years down the line, when there may not be
sufficient work within the village or when panchayats may not have the requisite funds to
initiate new work. Considering the fact that the Act and the schemes that the state
governments have floated are still new, and that the people are not as aware of the
‘demand’ aspect of the Act, there will be, in the coming months, considerable pressure on
state governments for employment as and when demand for work picks up in these
districts. It has also been seen that there is very little emphasis on training of panchayat
representatives in planning. There is a need to train panchayats to take up NREGP
activities in a systematic and planned manner, so that the employment guarantee can be
ensured along with the creation of sustainable infrastructure in these villages.
5.1.4. State-Wise Funds Released

More than 137000 works have been sanctioned under the project. The details are as
shown in the table below. An analysis of funds released for works reveals that only 20%
funds allocated for the
current year have been
No. of Works Started in Different States
utilized so far. Also, the
rate of progress differs
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
4%
from different state to
51% state and district to
district. Since funds are
Utttar Pradesh
18%
released directly to the

district by the Centre, the
State Government is not
in a position to reallocate
Bihar funds to better performing
districts (in terms of fund
13%
utilization).
Chattisgarh
Jharkhand
7%
7%
Release of funds is also proportionate to the number of works started in different states.
Amongst states under study, the maximum numbers of works have been started in
Madhya Pradesh, while the least is in Maharashtra. There is a great deal of variation in the
proportion of funds released to states. A comparison of the total registered households
and funds released reveals that Madhya Pradesh has the maximum amount released per
family. In Madhya Pradesh, on an average, an amount of Rs 2554.95 has been released
per registered family. This figure is the lowest in case of Maharashtra, where the amount
released per family in only Rs 433.88. Madhya Pradesh has almost 58% more funds
released than the national average, while Maharashtra is 73% lower than the national
average.
8
5.1.5. Release of Resources

The state governments are
supposed to create a fund Funds Released per Registered Household
called the State Employment 3000
Guarantee Fund, which will 2500

2554.95
receive the grant from the

Centre. The State Government
2002.04
2000
Amount (in Rs)

1686.35
has to supplement the grant
1500
from the Centre for
1243.31
implementing the scheme. The

1020.81
1000
amount released by the Central 433.88

Government as well as the
500
state’s matching share are 0
given in the table below. The Bihar Chattisgarh Jharkhand Madhya Pradesh
State
Maharashtra Utttar Pradesh
states have to provide 10% of State Value National Average (Rs 1621.50)
the total amount sanctioned for

implementation of the scheme. Most states have complied by allocating the state’s share.
The data available from different states reveals that Bihar, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and
Uttar Pradesh have actually released the state’s share, while Madhya Pradesh and
Maharashtra are yet to release their share of resources. In Madhya Pradesh, the state’s
share has not been released because the State Employment Guarantee Fund has not yet
been created. The government is in the process of creating this fund. As an interim
arrangement, the first instalment of funds from the Central Government was sent directly
to the districts.
Release of Centre and State Share for NREGP
Release During Current Year

S.N (Amt in Rs Lakh)
State
o
State matching State's share
Centre Total
share actually released
1 Bihar 40503.38 4500.38 4500.35 45003.73
2 Chattisgarh 18836.72 2092.97 1732.17 20568.89
3 Jharkhand 37618.59 4179.84 4179.81 41798.40
4 Madhya Pradesh 116698.20 12966.47 0 116698.20
5 Maharashtra 17961.64 1995.74 0 17961.64
6 Uttar Pradesh 33498.69 3722.08 2600 36098.69
TOTAL 265117.22 29457.48 13012.33 278149.55
Data Source: nregp.nic.in, August 2006
5.1.6. Expenditure Pattern

The expense on wages (skilled and unskilled), material and contingency in different states
is mentioned below (data from Maharashtra is not available). In the five states where data
was available, the payment on wages was nearly 70%, and that on material was around
30%. The contingency expenses were around 1%, except in the case of Uttar Pradesh,
where contingency expenses were slightly above 2 %. In Madhya Pradesh, there are
almost 50,000 works that have been completed till date. The State Government has
claimed that preliminary findings reveal nearly 90% of the works taken under NREGP have
been implemented by Gram Panchayats. The total person-days of work generated till now
9
in the state are 1035.79 lakhs. Thus, on an average, per day wages in Madhya Pradesh
work out to Rs 51.94.
In all states, payment to skilled and unskilled wages is almost 70% of the total
expenditure. This is so because the work being undertaken is soil-based and labour-
intensive. Currently, there is enough soil-based work in villages, but in all the states, there
is very little panchayat land available in villages and as implementation of the programme
picks up, there is going to be a shortage of soil- based work. This means that other
activities which involve more material cost will have to be included, and the proportion of
material cost to labour cost will have to be reworked in the scheme if employment has to
be guaranteed. If this proportion is not changed, people applying for employment may not
get work and the state governments will have to pay unemployment allowance instead.
Expenditure Pattern Under NREGP
Cumulative Expenditure Percentage to total

S.No State (Amt in Rs Lakh) expenditure
On On semi- On Conti
Unskilled skilled and On continge Materi ngen
wage skilled wage material ncy Total Wages al cy
1 Bihar 11163.75 2308.26 5973.201 154.481 19599.69 68.74 30.48 0.79
2 Chattisgarh 10094.5 347.55 4439.91 38.82 14920.78 69.98 29.76 0.26
3 Jharkhand 8858.98 1083.21 4075.25 144.13 14161.57 70.21 28.78 1.02
4 Madhya Pradesh 53803.39 4931.22 24264.1 564.73 83563.44 70.29 29.04 0.68
5 Maharashtra NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
6 Uttar Pradesh 9130.09 490.53 3499.91 285.63 13406.16 71.76 26.11 2.13
Data Source: nregp.nic.in August 2006
5.1.6. Key Findings from Government Data
Among the six states, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have the maximum rural households
that can be covered under the scheme. If the programme is implemented in the real
sprit of the Act, these states can be among the better performing states as far as
receiving central grants is concerned.
The status of registration of households in Maharashtra and Bihar is extremely poor.
Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh are on track as far as issuing job cards
to registered families is concerned. In these three states, the job cards have been
issued to almost 100% registered households.
Invariably, in all the states, the number of jobs provided is almost the same as jobs
demanded.
Madhya Pradesh has received the largest chunk of resources for implementation of the
programme. It has got nearly 50% of the cumulative resources released to the six
states covered in the study. IT is also worthwhile to mention here that Madhya Pradesh
is the only state where almost 90% works are being undertaken by panchayats.
The fund released per registered households is abysmally low in Maharashtra. This
shows a dismal performance of the state as compared to other states.
In Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, the State Government has still not released any
resources from the state’s share for the programme. As an interim arrangement, the
10
grant from the centre was sent directly to the district. However, the districts that have
high utilisation rates are facing problems in getting the subsequent instalments.
In Madhya Pradesh, the State Employment Guarantee Fund has not been created till
date. This is the reason for the delay in release of the state share and the instalment
to the districts.
The works being undertaken is labour-based and invariably in all states, nearly 70% of
expenditure has been on skilled and unskilled labour.
5.2. NREGA from Media’s View

The purpose of the review of the media coverage is to consider issues
reflected/highlighted in the media on NREGA. This has been divided into three sections:
5.2.1. Media Response at the time of enactment
The coverage of the NREGA in the media has changed over a period of time. When the bill
was being discussed in Parliament several journalists and columnists denounced the bill
as:
(i) an economic hoax6 because: it was not the duty of the state to guarantee
employment; it burdened the tax paying public that actually funded such schemes; the
nation should maximize production not work, and; government actually destroys jobs
(ii) a corruption guarantee scheme7 because: it was a planned drain of wealth from the
productive sector to the underground economy; perpetuates the populist legacy of
politicians; would not only be wasteful but entail fresh taxes and erode India’s
competitiveness, and; encourage a network of patronage
(iii) bountiful and wasteful8 because: already the Central government spent over Rs
40,000 Crore per annum for poverty alleviation which was wasted; the scheme would
be implemented first in districts represented by powerful politicians who would get the
chance to utilize tax payer’s money for political patronage
(iv) a means to call mid term elections9 because it allowed purchasing power worth Rs
12000 crores to 20 million Indians in the first phase of the programme.
(v) a still-born child10 because: it would generate vast rents with small transfer benefits;
leakages of government programmes were as high as 98%; reduce growth rate of the
economy; but land reform could generate capitalist employment.
(vi) create a hole in government finances11 to the tune of 0.6% of the GDP
(vii) a means to siphon off money12 because the NREGA was to be evaluated on the
basis of the number of days of employment generated not outputs like creation of
6
Sauvik Chakravarti, Employment Guarantee a Hoax, Indian Express, New Delhi,
7
Swapan Dasgupta, Rename REGA as Corruption Guarantee Scheme, The Pioneer, New Delhi
8
Tavleen Singh, Marxists begin to see the light Not Sonia, Indian Express, Sunday August 28, 2005
9
N. Chandra Mohan, Jobbing through to the elections, Sify.com, 5 October, 2005
10
Sebastian Morris, Employment Guarantee Scheme is a still-born child: Try land reforms, Financial Express, August
30, 2005
11
M.K. Venu, Leading Reform is a two-way street, Economic Times, September 6, 2005
11
assets and therefore could lead to massive fraud by the bureaucrats to show
generation of employment
Thus costs of the scheme as well as widespread corruption along with capitalist rhetoric
were the main objections. The same sentiments were shared in sections of the
international media13 which wondered as to how the government would sustain the
programme.
The Act was defended by a retired bureaucrat14 who disputed the figures of high costs said
to be to the tune of one lakh fifty thousand crore pointing out that Maharashtra had had
an employment guarantee scheme for over 30 years. Based on the Maharashtra figures
the employment guarantee scheme would cost only Rs 17, 000 crore or even less. Another
writer saw it as a momentous initiative15 that had the potential to boost the rural economy
and compared it with employment programmes across the world. A third writer pointed
out that the act improved the rural economy's ability to absorb labour leading to better
wages.16 It was based on the principle of self-targeting and would benefit only those in
dire need.17 These were the exceptions.
5.2.2. Media Response on NREGA programme implementation

Since then the coverage of the NREGA has changed. The media has either started looking
at success stories on the positive side or lamented lapses in implementation, which
prevented the poorer sections from receiving their due. Benefits from the scheme that
have been highlighted include:
(i) Rural unemployed labourers in Panchayats in Delhi gaining productive employment18

for a longer period of time. This was being facilitated by a smooth flow of information
from Delhi to all tiers of the district officials and the Panchayati Raj
(ii) Higher participation of women19 in Dungarpur district of Rajasthan where 90% of the
workers under the NREG scheme are women
(iii) Corruption being minimized20 in Rajasthan due to public vigilance leading to more
than one and a half lakh people gaining employment in Dungarpur district. There was
massive participation of rural folk Tribal women looked forward to seeing their men
back home. A Padyatra21 of activist groups in Rajasthan revealed little corruption and a
pro-active administration.
(iv) Reduced rural-urban migration22 in Gujarat and Rajasthan since it enabled

labourers avoid costs of migration
12
Job Scheme: A means to Siphon off money, Rediff Money, September 5, 2005
13
Cherian Thomas, Adding jobs But at what cost?, International Herald Tribune, September 14, 2005
14
Venkat R. Chary, REGS: Grossly miscalculated?, The Hindu Business Line, 9 September, 2005
15
Maxine Olson, Work for pro-poor growth, The Economic Times, October 20, 2005.
16
Sridhar, V. 2005.’Empowering the rural poor’, Frontline, Vol. 22, Issue 19, Sep 10-23
17
Ibid
18
Sonu Jain, Job Guarantee rolls out, ray of hope in New Delhi shadow, The Indian Express, 3 February, 2006
19
Avijit Ghosh, Job scheme gets feminised in south Rajasthan, Times of India, 26 April, 2006
20
Mohammad Iqbal, Public vigilance helps to minimise corruption in rural employment guarantee scheme, The Hindu,
28 April, 2006
21
Abha Sharma, Coming home to a better tomorrow, Deccan Herald, Bangalore
22
Reetika Khera, Employment Guarantee and Migration, The Hindu, 13 July 2006
12
5.2.3. State-wise highlights on performance

These are specific case studies, stories, and news items on selective states focusing on
problems in implementation:
(i) Lack of assessment especially in Uttar Pradesh where there is no data available on jobs
required to provide livelihood security23. In fact Uttar Pradesh is seen as a laggard24 in
this regard.
(ii) Lack of rationalization of work norms25 which are too demanding so that few are able
to earn the wage rate of Rs 73 per day
(iii) Corruption and neglect26 hindering implementation of the programme in Haryana

and UP
(iv) Low ground awareness, low wages and lack of attendance in gram sabhas27 in
Gujarat which also has the distinction of having the first court case28 on lack of
payment of adequate wages
(v) Difficult work sites, underpayment, violation of social security norms, uninformed
people and children in scorching heat29 characterizing the implementation of NREGA in
Madhya Pradesh. Discrimination on the basis of caste, community, disability and
proximity to sarpanch, panchayat secretary have been noticed across the country
(vi) Several states failing30 to implement provisions of the programme. Haryana,

Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal and Kerala have not issued state specific
operational guidelines. Chattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh have issued their own
amendments which violate the provisions of NREGA.
Thus, public vigilance and the emerging success stories have induced many media persons
to change their outlook towards the programme. The difference in coverage is now only a
matter of degree with some media being more supportive than the other. An interesting
issue is that those sections of the media that had championed the Act such as the Hindu
are playing the role of watchdogs by pointing out lapses in implementation while other
sections that had been negative or ambivalent such as Business Standard & Indian
Express are coming to a grudging acceptance of the merits of the programme.
5.3. Civil Society Perspective on NREGA

The CSO’s perspective is based on the primary data which was collected during the NREGA
week that was observed in the PACS states of Bihar, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Uttar
23
Arvind Singh Bisht, Rural employment: No guarantee yet, Times of India, 19 February, 2006
24
Times News Network, UP a laggard in the rural job plan, Times of India, 9 August 2006
25
Mohammad Iqbal, Ibid
26
Sreelatha Menon, Village ‘dole’ takes baby steps amid apathy, graft, Rediff Money, 7 August, 2006
27
Rajiv Shah, Report slams state record on rural jobs, Gandhi Nagar, 15 September, 2006
28
Kamran Sulaimani, Paid just Rs 4 per day under rural job scheme, widow moves Gujarat HC, Indian Express, June
15, 2006
29
Sachin Kumar Jain, Digging in times of harvest, Tehelka
30
States dragging their feet on rural job scheme, says study, The Economic Times, Chandigarh, June 5, 2006
13
Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh. In Bihar, the campaign covered 1000 villages
spread across the poorest districts. Besides, the CSOs were successful in filing 50,000
application forms, mostly of the Dalits and landless. In Jharkhand, the campaign was
spread over 550 villages in 20 districts. In Maharashtra, the PACS campaign covered 200
villages in four districts. It covered a population of around 1,20,000 while in Madhya
Pradesh and Chattisgarh the campaign covered 420 villages in 11 districts.
5.3.1. Awareness of the programme

A rally on NREGS in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh by civil society groups found
extremely low level of knowledge on the scheme among the community members.
However, elected representatives specially the Panchayat head and Secretaries of the
Panchayat were reasonably aware. Similarly, a survey of 15 groups covering about 40
individuals from different wards of the Panchayat Heera Nagar in the Tikamgarh district of
the Madhya Pradesh revealed that only 10% of the individuals were aware of the scheme
(June 2006). Many of the individuals who had even got the employment under the NREGS
thought that it was some sort of employment provided by the Panchayat from prevailing
schemes like SGRY etc. It was also observed that the people who formed the upper strata
of the society were better informed than the workers. Many of these upper class families
were not seeking employment in the NREGS.
Most of the road side Panchayats had walls painted with the main features of the scheme.
But the impact of these wall writings cannot be said for sure in predominantly illiterate
populations that reside in these villages. In Brijpura panchayat of Chhattrarpur district in
Madhya Pradesh, it was observed that there was little or no information available at the
Panchayat level about the type of work available or its timeframe. In Mohraha panchayat
of the district, the lack of understanding on wage payment rate was creating confusion
among the villagers. Often people felt that they were being underpaid for the entire days
work. The disabled were refused work, and in some cases people from outside the village
were given work in the village.
In Raipurva village of Chitrakoot district in Uttar Pradesh, it was found that the panchayat
secretaries were not aware that the responsibility of registering applications was with
them. There was also some misinformation about the fact that only households listed as
BPL were entitled for getting job cards. The Rozgar yatra in June 2006 in Patra Para
panchayat, Rajpur block of Sarguja district in Chattisgarh, revealed that the level of
awareness was abysmally low People were not aware of the purpose of the job cards.
Inquiries in the field showed that the distribution of job cards was well under way in
villages in the districts of Ranchi, Gumla, Lohardagga, Simdega and West Singhbhum of
Jharkhand, but the process of applying had not begun because the people did not know
that they had to apply for work A similar situation prevailed in the other states as well. It
was discouraging to see that only 29% households from 30 villages in 6 blocks of
Aurangabad district in Maharashtra had applied for job cards. It was observed that this
was primarily because of very low level of awareness among people.
In Lachadarga village in Jharkhand, work had not started anywhere in the village, and the
gram sabha itself did not know about the NREGS. Low level of awareness was also found
in the Kolebera district of the state.
14
Awareness efforts by the government agencies

State Situation on the ground
Bihar Minimal early awareness efforts by the government have resulted
in very little awareness at the field level. The government efforts
have been limited to wall writing at inconspicuous places along
roads about schemes of family planning, drinking water and vector
diseases. The awareness efforts of CSOs during the NREGA week
were fully supported by the government and local administration
which produced good results, but the government has failed to
develop a proper policy in place to increase the awareness about
NREGA.
Chattisgarh In most of the places it was observed that the government

officials did not provide the villagers with adequate information.
The awareness generation effort in the NREGP was being done as
any other government scheme.
Jharkhand During discussions with the government officials, it appeared that

even the government officials at the block and panchayat level
were not fully aware of the scheme and its guidelines.
Madhya It was observed that even at the block level, proper awareness
Pradesh material was not available.
The panchayat representatives said that they had not been
provided with any publicity material (no pamphlets, handbills,
posters etc.)
In some districts a few wall writings could be seen as the only sign
of NREGA awareness efforts in villages.
Maharashtra Despite having an employment guarantee scheme for the past 34

years, the Maharashtra REG Scheme formulated NREGA did not
evoke very enthusiastic response from the villagers, as no clear
signals about differences from earlier EGS and MREGS were sent
by the administration.
Uttar Pradesh Lack of political will was reflected in awareness creation as well.
Some lower level officials in private conversations admitted that
higher level of awareness could create problems for them as they
would always have to be on their toes to provide work to the
villagers.
5.3.2. Applications for Job Cards

Though the guidelines of the act say that everyone who registers for work, shall be
provided with job cards free of cost, it was observed that in some districts of these states,
people were being charged money for getting job cards. In Gathewara panchayat of
Chhattarpur district in Madhya Pradesh, inquiries made during the Rozgar Yatra revealed
that job cards had not been made and money was being demanded for making them.
There were no photographs on most of the job cards. People were not aware that they had
to apply for jobs. In Brijpura panchayat of the same district no entries were being made
15
on job cards about the type of work being

done, duration of the work, etc. Job cards did
not have the signature of the sarpanch, nor
did they have a photograph of the applicant.
Women were being paid at the rate of Rs 50
per day, less than the men. In Mohraha
panchayat of Chhattarpur district, Rs 150
was being charged for a job card.
Contractors were doing most of the work.
Women were paid less than the minimum
wage. In Raipurva village of Chitrakoot
district in Uttar Pradesh, it was found that in
several villages, people had to pay Rs 20-120
for a job card. They also had to pay for the
photographs for the job cards. Officials said that since they had not received any funds
from the government for this purpose, they recovered the cost from the applicants. This
reinstates the fact that the government officials were not properly aware of the NREGA
guidelines. It was observed in some villages of the district that a fee of Rs 2 to Rs 5 was
levied even for the application forms. There were also reports of the Pradhan refusing top
accept applications for registration from Itawa Dudail Panchayat in Chitrakoot district.
Applications for work and their receipt

State Issues on the ground
Bihar According to government figures, except two districts, work has
been provided to everyone who demanded
Conscious demand for work was observed in some areas
however, more demand for work is not coming because of
confusion related to nature of work, work duration, distance of
worksite from the village
Chattisgarh People were not aware of the procedure to apply for work.
There was no priority to women in allocation of work.
Presence of contractors was also reported at worksites.
In some instances people from outside the panchayat were
found working at the village work sites.
Jharkhand In absence of information about procedures for demanding
work, the work allotment was dependent upon officials’ interest
or CSO’s activism.
At some places work was being provided through contractors.
Madhya Most of the people were not aware that they had to apply for
Pradesh work separately after getting their job cards. At some places,
even if people knew that they had to apply for work they had
no idea about where to apply and the modes of application.
According to the Sarpanch, the block level officials were not
forthcoming with information and this caused undue delay in
providing work.
Maharashtra There was lack of information about procedures for applying for
work. Since in some of the districts farmers had committed
suicides recently, the administration was being proactive in
providing work.
Uttar Pradesh In most of the district there were no written receipts of job
16

application given.
There was lack of awareness of the procedure because the
Sarpanch did not know that he was not authorized to take
applications since work had to be provided by the block. The
block level officials said that there was no such provision in the
act to give dated receipts of applications received.
5.3.3. Availability of Job Cards

In Chattisgarh, it was observed that Job cards were not made till the date of the yatra.
The Sarpanch did the registrations of the families but the community by and large did not
know about the registration and had not received any cards. They only knew that their
photograph had been taken to be pasted on some cards. In 30 villages surveyed in 6
blocks of Aurangabad district of Maharashtra, of a total of 30,002 households, 8,881 were
found to have registered for job cards, and 5,920 got them. This means that only 67% of
the registered households had received the job cards till June 2006. Similarly in Biloli
block of Nanded district, of the 12,840 households surveyed, only 4,373 had registered for
job cards and only 1,558 got job cards. In Naigaon block, of Nanded district, of 13,822
households surveyed, 1,852 had registered and 552 got job cards. No one in the 15
villages surveyed in these blocks had actually got work under the NREGS. In Kinwat block,
of a total of 1,078 households, 862 registered and 324 got job cards. In Himayatnagar
block, of a total of 448 households, 360 registered for work and 288 got job cards. In
Mukhed block, of a total of 1,836 households, 962 registered and not a single person got a
job card.
In Yeotmal district (Maharshtra), around 50% of households in the 5 blocks surveyed had
registered for work, out of which 25% received job cards. Around 50% of the 46 surveyed
villages had prepared micro plans. In Ralegaon block, of 6,804 surveyed households,
1,417 had registered and 1,198 had job cards. In Yeotmal block, of a total of 10,462
households, 2,538 had registered and 967 had job cards. In Zari, of a total of 1,974
households, 655 had registered and 335 had job cards. In Kelapur, of a total of 524
households, 193 had registered and 96 had job cards. In Maregaon, of a total of 443
households, 150 had registered and 63 had job cards. In Lachadarga village in Jharkhand,
around 250 people attended the meeting of the yatra. During the discussions if was found
that the village had 150 families and only 5 family had received the job cards.
A common practice observed in Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand was that the job cards
were not filled properly. In several villages it was observed that the job cards were taken
back by the panchayat secretary before making the payment. These cards were returned
after a long period and that too without entering any details in the card. In Semri Jhakrasi
Panchayat of Raibareli District, people were asked to get the photographs for job cards on
their own and the pradhan had promised that the amount would be reimbursed to them.
There are still around 25 job card holders who have not received the reimbursement in
Parwa Rajdhar panchayat of Mirzapur district in Uttar Pradesh, people had applied for job
cards in August and they did not receive it till October.
Registration and Job Cards

Bihar It was observed that there was undue delay in issuing Job cards
after receipt of application
17

Job cards were being issued without any registration number
and/or photos of adult members
In some villages, people were being asked to pay for the
photographs in direct contravention of the due procedures
It was also observed that no details (job done, wages paid etc)
were being recorded in the job cards
Chattisgarh It was observed that money was being demanded for making job
cards
Generally people were not clear about the procedures of getting
job cards
It was found in most of the places that the job cards prepared
were incomplete (for instance there were no photos, no
registration number, no Sarpanch’s signature)
Job cards were being made on joint family basis in contravention
of rules of NREGA
Jharkhand It was observed that people in all the NREGA districts have paid
money ranging from Rs. 20-120 for getting the job cards.
Majority of the people have been charged between Rs. 30-60 for
photographs (officials contend that since no fund has been
provided for photographs, it is being charged to the beneficiary),
It was also observed in some districts that deadlines were fixed
for applying for job cards and in some cases job card applications
were not accepted after the due date
Madhya Job cards were not being distributed timely. In some districts jobs
Pradesh cards were lying with the Panchayat Secretary for the past few
months
Photographs were not pasted on the job cards which was being
put forward as an excuse for non-issuance of job cards
It was also observed that people were not aware of the utility of
the job cards
There were also reports of touts asking for Rs. 200 in lieu of
helping in getting the job card made
Maharashtra Despite having history of EGS in the state less than 50% of those
who have registered have got NREGS job card
In Aurangabad district the government claims to have distributed
100% job cards but in reality just two of the five blocks in the
districts have got 100% job cards
In some districts APL people not being registered for the scheme
by saying that the scheme is only for the BPL families
Uttar Pradesh A situation has been created where it seems mandatory to have a
printed registration form for application and most of the cases the
forms are not available
It was also observed that the authorities are taking a dilly-dallying
approach to avoid paying unemployment allowance in case of non-
provision of work
18
5.3.4. Payment of wages

It has been reported that wages were not being paid according to the norms. Not only
were there delays but the wages were lower than the prescribed minimum wages. In
several areas topographic features as well as competition led to higher wages locally but
there were no provisions in the NREGA to take this into account. Gender discrimination
has also been reported. In Brijpura panchayat of Chhattrarpur district in Madhya Pradesh
It was also observed that women were not engaged as much as men because according to
the panchayat, they could not show progress with women labourers. In Uttar Pradesh and
Madhya Pradesh it was found that the muster rolls are not being filled in the prescribed
registers. Instead the panchayats are filling the wage payment details on plain paper. It
was also observed that false data is being entered in the job cards. It was observed in
Jamurva Buzurg Panchayat in Raibareli District that payments for the plantation work
undertaken in August and September have not been released till date.
Payment of wages
Bihar Till date, work has been started at very few places.
In some districts it was observed that wage payments was
lower than what was stipulated and there were also report of
delayed payments for the work undertaken under NREGP.
Chattisgarh There was gross discontent among villagers about low wages,
especially in areas of hard soil strata. Payment was done on the
basis of the work done, however it seems there is no difference
in the rates for normal soil and hard strata. Thus people did not
get the complete wage for the work done.
Jharkhand The state government hiked the minimum wage from Rs. 60 to
Rs. 73. However the wages being paid at the NREGA worksites
appear to be lesser than the old minimum wage rate.
Madhya Rampant delay was observed in making payments due to the

Pradesh non-availability of overseers for evaluation of works
undertaken.
At some places wages being paid were lower than the
stipulated minimum wage for the agriculture labour,
At some places, there was difference in wages being paid to
male and female workers.
Maharashtra Delays in wage payment was common at worksites, Sarpanch’s
attribute this to non-release of funds from the Taluka office.
In some places, gender discriminatory in wage payment was
also observed.
Uttar Pradesh In some of the areas wage rate stipulated by the government
was less than the current market rate creating a disincentive
for the people to come to the NREGS work sites.
19
5.3.5. Provision of worksite facilities

While the act provides for extensive worksite facilities such as crèche and first-aid to be
made available to the people there is little evidence of this in practice. Women with small
children have been badly hit by this omission while the lack of first aid has endangered the
workers since earth works do involve the possibility of injuries. At the most drinking water
has been provided and that too has not been universal.
Work Site facility

Bihar In most of the cases inadequate worksite facilities were
present. Apart from drinking water no other facility like crèche,
first aid, shade were available at the worksites.
Chattisgarh The worksite facilities in Chattisgarh were also very poor. There
were no facilities like first aid kit or crèche.
Women often complained that since the worksites did not have
any facility for crèche, they either did not go for work or had to
leave their children at home.
Jharkhand There was complete lack of facilities at the work site

People had very low level of awareness about the provisions
related to facilities at work site
Madhya As observed in most states worksite facilities were non existent,

Pradesh Even the PRI representatives did not know about the facilities
to be provided at the worksite.
Maharashtra Facilities as per the provisions of the act were not being
provided at the work sites.
The local officials were ignoring directions of higher authorities
with regard to the facilities that had to be provided.
Uttar Pradesh Work had started in very small pockets hence it was difficult to
draw conclusion at this stage, however at the few worksites
there is hardly any facility available.
5.3.6. Unemployment allowance

The act enjoins upon the concerned officials to pay unemployment allowance to those
holding valid job cards if they are unable to provide work to the applicants. This provision
has hardly been implemented even when work was not granted. While officials have made
claims in this regard they are difficult to verify due to lack of valid receipts. The people
were also hardly aware that they could claim such an allowance.
Unemployment Allowance
Bihar No unemployment allowance payment yet. The chief minister
reportedly said to the officials that if unemployment wages
were paid in any block that amount would be deducted from the
20

concerned officials salary- this he said in front of TV cameras-
(He probably meant that work should be provided to everyone
who demands and he won’t bear any laxity on this account)-but
the result is that officials are trying to discourage application for
jobs.
Chattisgarh Since there are no dated receipts given either for registration or
job application it was very difficult to verify the official claim on
delay in job provision. Hence there was no payment of
unemployment wages.
Jharkhand The awareness level of people regarding unemployment

allowance is very low.
At places the work was being done through contractors hence
there had been no reports of actual unemployment allowance
payment.
Madhya There had not been any case of unemployment allowance being
Pradesh paid till date. However, this was basically because people were
either not getting any receipt for their application or they were
not getting a dated receipt.
Maharashtra Even in Maharashtra there had not been any case of

unemployment allowance payment till date. This can be
attributed to many reasons like lack of awareness among the
villagers and lower level government officials, and non
availability of dated receipts.
Uttar Pradesh There are no instances of unemployment allowance payment

from the state till date.
It was also observed that awareness level was very low and
most of the people did not even know about such provisions in
the act.
5.3.7. Major Findings from Field Data

There was very low awareness among citizens, elected representatives and
government officials (at levels below block) and this has been a major reason for the
flaws in the implementation of the scheme.
It was observed that there while people were keen to work and some of them were
also registering for work, there were very few states where the job cards had been
disseminated properly. In places where the job cards had been provided, it was
observed that there were a lot of anomalies.
In most of the states it was observed that the Job cards were not being used.
It was also observed that people were not applying for jobs. In some states where
people did apply for jobs they were not receiving proper receipts.
21
5.4. Citizens’ Perspective on NREGA

Looking collectively at the data gathered from 107 villages across 6 states, presents a
varied picture where some aspects of the implementation process of REGS are being
adhered to whereas some others are being neglected.
Work had started in 55% of the villages covered. For the jobs generated male workers
have had a slight edge with 51% of total jobs cornered. Looking at social categories break
up in terms of jobs Scheduled castes had 23% of the total jobs whereas ST group had
38% of the jobs and the OBCs had 18% of the total job generated. Average wage
payment for both the male and female workers was Rs. 53.75. In case of periodicity of
payment of wages only in 26% of the instance wages were paid within 7 days of the
stipulated task completed in 46% of the cases wages were paid in after 20 days of
completion of the task. In case of distance of the worksite from village being more than 5
km only in 12 % of such cases 10% extra wage was paid. The measure of transparency
was not very high given that muster roll and related documents were openly available in
only 37% of the cases. Among the worksite facilities drinking water was omnipresent but
crèche was available at less than 5% of the sites. The similar was the fate of the first aid
facility at the worksite. For proper monitoring and supervision of the works additional
manpower was available at less than 5% of the sites. There were cases of job demand
reported in only 10% of the area covered.
Comparative analysis of performance of NREGA

Based on 107 sample village data
Issue Uttar Pradesh Madhya Bihar Jharkha Maharashtra Chattisgarh
Pradesh nd
Work status – work started in – 50% works – Work – No – Work has – Work started in
70% villages completed started work started In 50% all the villages
– 25% works in just going villages. covered, 15%
completed 20% of on in work
the the completed.
Panchay surve
ats yed
covered villag
e
Jobs – SC : 28% – SC -1% – Hardly – N.A. – SC- 25% – SC-37%
generated – -OBCs : 50% 200 – -OBC -42% – ST-15%
– ST : 20% – ST-85% person – ST- 33% – OBC-8%
– Women : 48% – OBC -3% days – Women-58% – Women-53%
– Women : generat
39% ed so
far
Wage – Rs.58 for male – Rs.61 for – – N.A. – Wage – Rs. 60/day for
payments and female both male payments in male and
against and female the range female
provision of – In 40% case Rs.20/- to Rs.
60-50% wage wages paid 52/day
payment after 15 days
between 1-2
week
Transparenc – In 60% villages – In 30% – No – N.A. – In none of the – In 40% of the
y muster rolls villages transpar villages, cases muster
were read muster rolls ency muster rolls rolls read in the
are read norms were openly GS
being read
followed
Work site – 20% case, – 20% cases, – Even in – N.A. – 30% of the – In 10% of the
distance worksites 5 km nowhere the case worksite cased worksite
more than 5 away but only extra wages of farther than farther than
22
Issue Uttar Pradesh Madhya Bihar Jharkha Maharashtra Chattisgarh

Pradesh nd
km in 50% of such paid distance 5km but no 5km but no
cases extra being extra wages extra wages
wages paid more paid. paid
than 5
km no
payment
of extra
wages
Worksite – Drinking water – Drinking – No – N.A. – Drinking water – Drinking water
Facilities available but water facilities available but available but
crèche and first available but availabl crèche and first crèche and first
aid facility rare. crèche and e at the aid facility rare aid facility rare
first aid worksite
facility rare
Additional – At 15% job – At none of – No – N.A – No additional – No additional
manpower sites additional the job sites provisio manpower manpower
manpower additional n of
available manpower extra
available manpow
er
Job Demand – Job demanded – No demand – No – No – In one instance – No case of job
in 10% of the made so far. demand dema job demanded, demand.
villages but so far nd so job was
even after job far provided after
was provided 15 days
after more without
than 15 days in unemployment
90% of the allowance.
cases no
allowance was
paid
5.4.1. Uttar Pradesh

W or k St a t us- At least one work had been started in 70% of villages surveyed. Total
estimate of works comes to Rs. 3,32,0500. Earliest starting month was April, 2006, and
some works were started in October, 2006, too. Because of the intervening rainy
season, hardly 25% of the works have been completed so far.
Jobs ge ne r a t e d- Looking at person days break-up in terms of social categories, OBCs

got away with a lion’s share, with more than 50% of the jobs generated going to them,
followed by SCs (28%) and STs (20%). General category persons lagged behind, with
less than 1% jobs generated so far. In gender terms, women constituted 46% of the
total work force. Participation of disabled was at less than 5% of the worksites. Around
20% of job locations had workers who were above 60 years of age. By general
observation, it was seen that the disabled and the elderly were not getting any different
jobs but were being made to work just like any other able-bodied worker, and since
wages were was based on task completed, they often lagged behind in securing
minimum wages.
W a ge Pa ym e n t s: As far as payments are concerned, the average payment was Rs. 58

for both male and female workers, which is less than the minimum stipulated in the Act
i.e. Rs. 60. In less than 10% of cases, payment was done within 7 days, around 50% of
wages were paid between one and two weeks, and almost 10% of payments were made
after 20 days. The most common reason for delay was stated to be non-evaluation of
23
completed work by the sub-engineer, while the absence of the Panchayat Secretary was
cited as another.
Transparency- In 60% of villages, muster rolls were openly read in the GS, whereas in
40% of the villages, it was not available for scrutiny.
W or k sit e dist a n ce - In 20% of the cases, worksites were more than 5 km away from
villages, but only in half of them an extra 10% was paid along with their wages. In cases
where multiple works were going on, women were given preference in providing working
closer to the village in 30% of such cases.
W or k sit e fa cilit ie s- In terms of worksite facilities, drinking water was most common
whereas a crèche was the rarest, available at less than 5% of worksites. First-aid boxes
were also a rarity, with availability at less than 10% of work sites.
Addit ion a l m a n pow e r for im ple m e n t a t ion - About 15% of sites had additional
personnel deputed to monitor work; in most cases it was an accountant. 50% of
respondents were satisfied with field personnel wherever they were.
Job D e m a nd- In 10% of cases people applied for work but in 90% of these job
applications, work was provided after 15 days without any unemployment allowance. No
case of worksite injury was reported from any site.
5.4.2. Madhya Pradesh
W or k St a t us- In block Paraswara of district Balaghat in Madhya Pradesh, which was

chosen for the survey, work had started in all the surveyed villages with a total estimate
of Rs. 1,60,00,00. The earliest work began in May and the latest in October, 2006.
Around 50% of the works have been completed and of the works completed, none had a
valuation lower than the estimate.
Jobs ge ne r a t e d-. Looking at person days break-up in terms of social categories, STs
had the largest chunk with more than 85% (Balaghat is a tribal district) of jobs
generated, followed by OBCs (13%) and SCs with less than 1% jobs generated so far. In
gender terms, women constituted 39% of the total work force. Participation of disabled
was observed at less than 20% of worksites, whereas almost all the job locations had
people of age group 60+ years working.
W a ge Pa ym e n t s- As far as payment is concerned, the average payment was Rs. 61 for

both male and female workers. In 20% of the cases wages were paid within 7 days, in
40% of cases wages were paid after 15 days, and in 20% cases it took more than 20
days to pay the wages. The reason for the delay was stated to be non-evaluation of
completed work by the sub-engineer, and non -completion of work because of rains.
Transparency- In just 30% of cases were muster rolls openly read in the GS, whereas
in 70% of villages the muster roll was not openly available.
24
W or k sit e dist a nce - In 20% of cases worksites were more than 5 km away from the
village, but in none of the instances an extra 10% was paid as wages. In cases where
multiple works were going on, women were given preference in working closer to the
village in all such cases.
W or k sit e fa cilit ie s- In terms of worksite facilities, drinking water was most common
whereas a crèche was totally absent, available at none of the worksites; first aid boxes
were also uncommon, reportedly available at 10% of the worksites.
Addit ion a l m a n pow e r for im ple m e n t a t ion- At none of the sites was an additional
personnel deputed to monitor work. Monitoring was done by the Panchayat Secretary,
Panchs or Sarpanchs themselves.
Job D e m a nd- There has been no instance of people applying for jobs. No case of
worksite injury was reported from any site.
5.4.3. Bihar
Eight blocks across three districts viz. Jamui, Muzaffarpur and Nalanda were covered in
the study. Of the eight blocks and 11 Panchayats surveyed in the month of October,
work had started in only two panchayats in Nalanda and one panchayat in Muzaffarpur.
The total estimate of only Rs. 50,000 has generated only 200 person-days of work. As
for the rest of the Panchayats, registration and job card distribution was going on at a
sluggish pace. On enquiry, concerned personnel attribute the situation to two major
factors, the first being the recent Panchayat elections, and second being the BPL survey.
They are of the opinion that because of the recent panchayat elections, the incumbents
are relatively inexperienced and were taking their time to initiate a novel scheme like
BREGS in their areas. Lack of technical know-how is also an impediment. About the role
– or lack thereof- of government machinery, officials are of the opinion that just after the
Panchayat elections, they have been busy with the BPL survey, and only after its
completion can they can focus on the BREGS. Moreover, there has been not a single
appointment so far specifically for NREGA works, though there were very clear
instructions in the guidelines to the effect. There is a massive lack of awareness about
the Act and its provisions in the field, and even government officials are not completely
aware of the scheme. Even after the Chief Minister’s focus on the BREGS and his appeal
to officials to provide jobs on demand, there seems to have been no acceleration on
their part to issue job cards and start of new works. It was only because of the CMs
appeal that the official machinery cooperated with CSOs during the NREGA Week
campaign in July, 2006.
5.4.4. Maharashtra
W or k St a t u s- Work had been started in 50% of villages surveyed in Aurangabad and
Yavatmal districts. In Nanded district, no work had yet begun. The total value of work
was around Rupees 16.5-lakhs. All the works were started during April-May 2006. No
work was complete till September, 2006.
Jobs ge ne r a t e d- Looking at person-days break-up in terms of social categories, caste

groups got away with 42% of jobs generated, followed by STs (33%) and SCs (25%). In
gender terms, women constituted 58% of the total work force. This higher level of
participation of women can be explained by the fact that the districts covered fall into
25
migration the belt and most men migrate to the nearby industrial town during non-crop
seasons. At none of the sites was participation of the disabled observed, and only at one
worksite were people of age group of 60+ years were working.
W a ge Pa ym e n t s- As for payments, at one site the average payment was Rs. 20/ day
for both male and female workers. The concerned officials said that since payments are
based on a piece rate, people were not able to complete the minimum work for the day,
which is required for wages to be paid in full. At another site (earth work), payment was
in the range of Rs. 45-Rs. 52 per day. It was because of this low wage that men found it
more profitable to migrate. At two worksites, payments were made within a week, but at
one of the sites, it took 15 days or more. The absence of evaluators was cited as a
reason for the delay in payments. Another reason was the delay by the block office in
clearing submitted bills.
Transparency- In none of the villages covered were muster rolls openly read in the
Gram Sabha.
W or k sit e dist a nce - In just 30% of the cases were worksites more than 5 km away
from the village, but only in none of them was an extra 10% paid as wages. In cases
where multiple works were going on, women were given preference in working closer to
the village.
W or k sit e fa cilit ie s- In terms of worksite facilities, drinking water were the most
common whereas no crèche was seen at any of the sites. First-aid boxes were also not
common, with availability at only at 25% of the sites.
Addit ion a l m a n pow e r for im ple m e n t a t ion - At none of the sites was additional
personnel deputed to monitor work; in most cases, work was supervised by Panchs or
the Panchayat Secretary. In about 50% of cases were people satisfied with the field
personnel (Panchs, Panchayat Secretary) wherever they were.
Job D e m a n d- In just one instance had people applied for a job, but a job was provided
after more than 15 days and without any unemployment allowance being paid. One case
of worksite injury was reported from one of the sites, but he was not provided free
medical care by the authorities.
5.4.5. Chattisgarh
W or k St a t u s- Work was going on in all villages covered in Chowki, Manpur and Mohla
blocks of district Rajnandgaon. The total estimate of the work came to Rs 10-lakhs, with
the first work started in the month of May and the latest in July. Around 15% of the
works have been completed, and of the works completed, none had a valuation lower
than the estimate.
Jobs ge n e r a t e d-. Looking at the person-days break-up in terms of social categories,

caste workers had 39% of total work generated, closely followed by SC workers with
37%. SC workers had 15% share and OBC workers 8% share of the total work
generated. In gender terms, women constituted 53% of the total work force.
Participation of disabled was not observed at any worksites, whereas almost all job
locations had people of age group 60+ years working.
26
W a ge Pa ym e n t s- As far as payments are concerned, the average payment was Rs. 60

for both male and female workers. In just 15% of the cases were wages paid within 7
days, in 60% of cases wages were paid after 15 days, and in 25% of cases, it took more
than 20 days to pay the wages. The reason for delay was stated to be delay in release of
funds from the Block office and non completion of work because of rains.
Transparency- In just 40% of cases were muster rolls openly read in the GS, whereas
in 60% of villages, the muster roll was not openly available.
W or k sit e dist a n ce - In just 10% of cases were worksites more than 5 km away from
the villages, but in no instance was an extra 10% paid as wages. In cases where
multiple works were going on, women were not given any preference in working closer
to the village in all instances.
W or k sit e fa cilit ie s- In terms of worksite facilities, drinking water was available at all
the worksites, whereas crèches and first aid boxes were found nowhere.
Addit ion a l m a n pow e r for im ple m e n t a t ion - At none of the sites was additional
persons deputed to monitor work. Monitoring was done by Panchayat Sewak or Panchs.
Job D e m a n d- There has been no case of people applying for a job. No case of worksite
injury was reported from any site.
5.4.6. Jharkhand
Of the five villages covered which were spread over five Panchayats in four blocks, no
work had been started till the time of data collection in October. The Jharkhand
government had recently revised the minimum wage and increased it from Rs 60 to Rs
73 per day, but reportedly, in villages where NREGA work was going on, the actual
payment was lower than even the earlier wage. During the survey, interviews of local
officials were conducted in-charge of NREGA implementation. Their awareness level was
found to be abysmally low, and in some cases, the officials failed to point out the
difference between Food-for-Work Programmes and NREGA. The situation was no
different for PRI representatives and Panchayat level government functionaries. There
seems to be a complete lack of awareness about NREGA and its procedures, and it
seems that the government effort to popularize JREGS had been minimal. In villages
where some work under NREGA had begun, it was following the same pattern as earlier
employment generation programmes, wherein there was no participation of people in
selecting the work or mode of execution. It was being decided by block level officials at
will, in collusion with a few PRI representatives and Panchayat level officials.
27
6. Institutional Hurdles - Panchayat Perspective
6.1. Envisaged role of panchayats in NREGA
Gram Panchayats are central to the implementation of NREGA at the grassroots. The
National Employment Guarantee Act envisages that at least 50% of the total works are to
be executed by the Gram Panchayats. Remaining 50% jobs may be executed by other
agencies such as the higher tier of panchayats, government departments or voluntary
organizations. The Project officer at the block level will coordinate with the Gram
Panchayat for facilitating the implementation of NREGS at the grass roots. The act ensures
that Gram Panchayats have maximum control over the planning and resources as Gram
Panchayats take decision on the 50% jobs. In any case the panchayats remains an
important institution as the jobs are demanded from the panchayat and employment is
generated at the Panchayats.
Envisaged role of Gram Panchayat in execution of NREGA
Make a development plan of the Panchayat and list out projects to be undertaken as
NREGS in accordance with the Gram Sabha’s sanction.
Registration of families and distribution of job cards.
Receiving application for work and providing employment.
Executing the work from amongst the development plan of panchayat, which has been
sanctioned by the project office.
Maintaining muster roll and distributing wages from the funds received under NREGS in
the Panchayat account.
At least 50% of works from the sanctioned one, will be executed through Gram
Panchayat while the reaming 50% will be undertaken by the other execution agencies
like Janpad Panchayat, District Panchayat, Government department and NGOs.
The following three processes are working simultaneously at the block level with respect to
the execution of NREGS at the Panchayat.
(i) Panchayat have to make a plan and build a shelf of the project to be taken up in
NREGS.
(ii) People will demand work from Panchayats as an employment guarantee.
(iii) Gram Panchayat acts as an implementing agency and provides employment as well
as wages to workers.
Gram Panchayat though plays an important role, however, it is not acting totally
independently. It is supposed to execute the projects in close coordination of other
institutions, individuals and processes. These may be related to the states preparedness in
handling the ambitious national scheme or interface of technical staff for technical
approvals with the panchayats. Each of these factors has influenced the institutional
performance of the panchayats in the NREGS. Therefore it is necessary to examine each of
these factors before concluding upon the panchayats efficiency and effectiveness in
handling such an ambitious and resource rich scheme. In this section each of these factors
are taken up to understand their influence at the grass-root level and the conflict posed at
28
the panchayat with their interplay. The following factors influencing the performance of
panchayats in implementing NREGS:
Availability of the fund at the panchayats for the implementation of the NREGS
Availability of the technical approval to the Gram Panchayats from the concerned
authorities.
Timely technical evaluation of the completed projects by the concerned departments so
that the wages can be distributed in time.
Flexibility to the panchayats in choosing the project, so that panchayats undertake
work that is the priority of the community.
Climatic, geographical and topographical features posing difficulties to the panchayats
in undertaking the earthwork or work ‘directed’ in the national and state priorities.
6.2. State’s preparedness in handling the National Act- locally

Many states are still struggling with the teething problems of implementation of the
National act at the state level. Some of the states like Madhya Pradesh has been more
active while some have had an extremely poor response. For instance, in Uttar Pradesh,
State Government passed its own state scheme in compliance with the National Act on
23rd May 2006. This resulted in a delay of the preparation of state guidelines and
consequent implementations of the NREGS by the Panchayats in the state. The state
councils were also formed late in many states. Therefore, even in case of problems, there
is no avenue for redressal. Like in Jharkhand where 20 districts out of the 22 districts of
the state are covered under NREGS, the state council has not been formed. Jharkhand and
Bihar have had their peculiar problems due to lack of panchayat bodies in place to take up
the program. The Panchayat election in Bihar was delayed and therefore, neither the
panchayat nor the state was prepared to take the programme through panchayat. In
Jharkhand the situation is even more difficult, where Panchayat elections have not taken
place till date. The delayed election in panchayats in these two states obviously affected
the performance.
Many states like Uttar Pradesh have taken a long time to prepare operational
guidelines.
Sate council in many states were formed very late like Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand.
However, Jharkhand showed the spirit in implementing the state led employment
guarantee scheme in the left out from NREGA districts of the state.
Some states like Uttar Pradesh restricted the number of job cards to be issued. So that
they could handle the demand for work with the number of technical staff currently
available in the state.
Maharashtra was very slow in implementing Madhya Pradesh has been amongst the
the national act despite having the better performing states with highest
experience of running a state run utilization of the central fund, notably
employment guarantee scheme for more 90% of the work undertaken in
than 30 years. Of the 41.4 lakh people in Madhya Pradesh is executed through
Maharashtra who had applied for the job card Panchayats.
only 10.95 had been issued the card.
Chattisgarh has been extremely slow in Maharashtra and the Uttar Pradesh are
issuing the job cards. Job cards had not been the states showing extremely poor
issued in Rajpur block of Ambikapur district political will in the implementation.
till the month of June. Yet the State
Government issued orders for not providing
29
unemployment allowance from 15 June to 15 October.
6.3. Unequal distribution of funds and the resource utilization in districts
A Panchayat can initiate work in its Gram Panchayats only when funds are made available
to the gram Panchayats account. However, in the last nine months of the implementation,
many Panchayats did not receive the required grant in time. Similarly, there was a
different response of the states as well as districts to the implementation of NREGA.
Some states were very active in implementation like Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan while
some states lagged behind like Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra. The policy of transfer of
funds from the Centre to the State in implementation was more or less same across the
board. Yet some of the districts more and some other districts received less grant. In
Madhya Pradesh the first kick off grant was released by the centre in the month of March
and April directly to the districts. Many districts with the same number of job cardholders
received remarkably different amounts in the first kick off grant.
Some of the better-prepared districts i.e.

the districts with efficient administrative Some districts received remarkably low
machinery and leadership like Sidhi amount in the first installment (for kick off)
district in Madhya Pradesh, were quick to of NREGS grant from the centre. Therefore
respond to the scheme. The panchayat’s the implementation in these districts was
micro plans and shelf of project were greatly influenced. For example Umaria,
ready with the perspective plan of the Tikamgarh, Chatarpur and Satna district in
district. These districts were quick to use Madhya Pradesh were released relatively
the first instalment of the grant which low amount in the April to kick off the
was released somewhere in the month of programme.
the March or April. The well-prepared districts consumed the first instalment so fast that
there was a shortage of funds in these districts before the centre released a demand
based second grant. For example Sidhi district in Madhya Pradesh was released Rs. 60
Crore as the first grant, but the district started executing projects whose cumulative
budget exceeded Rs. 80 Crore. There was a fund shortage to the tune of Rs. 20 Crore in
the district in the initial phase of the implementation of the scheme. The fund shortage
was later replenished by the second release of 51 Crore in the district. In many other
districts where perspective plans were not ready the execution of NREG got delayed. In
both the cases, job cardholders demand work and delay in execution of work is seen as
inefficiency of Panchayats as job cardholders make Panchayats accountable for the non-
performance of scheme.
6.4. Top down implementation drive adversely affecting local planning

The success of NREGA depends on two important factors - creation of employment for
poor and needy, and creation of required infrastructure and productive assets in the
scheme. This scheme probably provides the first ever, such a big opportunity to gram
panchayat. Panchayat have freedom to plan large-scale work and execute the work with
sufficient resources provided under the National Employment Guarantee Act. The legal
provisions in the Act strengthen the Gram Panchayats for their control over the planning,
implementation as well as resources.
30
There are certain conditionality fixed in the National directives:

The act stipulates that material to the labour ratio should not exceed 40 to 60.
The directive is to undertake the earthwork under the NREGA.
Water conservation work was given the top priority in the NREGA.
In fact, Panchayats are suppose to make a perspective plan of a larger time frame and
prepare a shelf of project, to be executed under the NREGS. However, in practice
panchayats autonomy to plan according to their need was curtailed by state led top down
campaigns.
Due to too many guidelines and

instructions either from the Mismatch of community needs and works
national level or at the state, from undertaken
the top, Gram Panchayat remains
the notional decision maker in the Jaundi Panchayat in Badarvas block of Shivpuri
whole process. Tacit ‘Advise’ is district in Madhya Pradesh has a Adhivasi hamlet in
given by the chief its village. This hamlet is separated by the rest of
executive/project officer of the the village by a seasonal nullah. This hamlet is cut
block to Panchayat heads to off from the external world for many days during
prepare project proposals in line the rainy season as the nullah over flows during
with the state priorities. For rains. The Panchayat and community desperately
instance, NREGS in Madhya needed an over-bridge on the nullah. However,
Pradesh was merged with state panchayats was instead asked to take the road
wide water conservation campaign construction. Similarly, in Mungaya village of Sareti
and plantation drive. Similarly in Panchayat of Sidhi District, Madhya Pradesh, the
Chattisgarh, many of the state villagers wanted to take up the level of land as the
programs with specific objectives first activity in the NREGS. The village is
are merged with the State dominated by poor scheduled caste people. They
employment guarantee scheme. have very small land holdings and the village is
Though well intended in content, dominated by undulated land. Leveling of the land
these campaigns have jeopardized could have made it fit for the agriculture. However
the Panchayat autonomy in the panchayat was directed to undertake the
planning. Many indigenous plans of construction of a new well and recharge of an old
the panchayat are sacrificed for well. The water from the well may not be used for
the state-wide directives for the agriculture on such difficult land.
success of the state led campaigns.
Thus the immediate and essential needs of the people were compromised. Small things
like repair of drains couldn’t be undertaken, as Panchayats in NREGS districts do not have
any flexible funds. In Madhya Pradesh Jala Abhishek campaign during the summer for
water conservation was followed with Hariyali drive for the plantation during monsoon,
took away any opportunity of panchayat centered planning. A little later panchayats were
once again asked to make a six monthly plan under the name of Kapil Dhara for
undertaking work on roads, wells and ponds.
In a survey undertaken in six districts of Madhya Pradesh in the month of June covering
five panchayats each, there is a clear mismatch on priorities of the people vis-à-vis work
initiated in Panchayat. From a social mapping exercise, undertaken in five panchayats
each of six districts of Madhya Pradesh on priorities of the panchayat and the actual works
sanctioned, shows a distinct mismatch between priorities and NREGS projects. The work
31
initiated at the Panchayat is usually of 8th to 10th work in the order of priority of the people
of the Panchayat.
Experiences in U.P
The plantation drive was commonly seen in many states. Such drives jeopardized the
panchayat plans. State led campaigns were more or less forced on the panchayats. In
many such drives specifically the plantation drive, the provision of the act, or the
autonomy of gram panchayat in planning was compromised. Not only this, the expenditure
provisions, autonomy of Gram panchayat in handling the resources and the ratio of wages
to the material was over looked. For instance in Uttar Pradesh, the state used the NREGS
resource to plant Seven hundred and Ninety lakh (790 lakh) in the state-wide plantation
campaign. The administration simply asked the Panchayats to buy plants from it at the
rate of 7500 thousand rupees for 500 plants. The Panchayats head of the Gram Sabha had
little role in the campaign. Panchayats Secretaries were summoned and the drive was
carried out in their association. The Pradhans are not any more willing to undertake the
NREGS because they are only used as rubber stamps by the administration and the
Panchayat Secretaries. They are scared that they might be implicated tomorrow for the
cheques that panchayat secretaries are making them sign.
Experience in M.P
Roadside plantation has been taken around the Nanda panchayat in Betul block of Betul
district of Madhya Pradesh. Since need protection from animals etc therefore, most of
district has passed executive orders for taking protective measures to save saplings.
Therefore, in Betul district a barbed iron wiring fencing on cement polls was undertaken
around plantation area. 1.5 mtr high barbed wire was tied to cement polls placed at a gap
of 2.25 mtrs. In the preparatory phase undertaken in the panchayat out of total
expenditure of Rs. 3.77 lakhs, only a paltry sum of Rs.67143/- (18%) was spent on
wages to unskilled labours and on material Rs.3,09,857/- (82%) has been spent. Though
there is some indirect labour payment to people preparing the cement poles all around the
district but it is difficult to calculate the exact proportion of wages to the material.
The implementation of the campaign, when looked at macro level gives a reasonably
positive picture on expenditure norms. However, the micro realities are sometimes quite
contrary and deceptive. For instance the
plantation drive at many districts was pushed Citizens denied work on demand
by the district administration in violation of
In Kundupuru village of Aurangabad District
prescribed norms of expenditure ratio. Maharashtra, Rs. (188736/-) One lakh Thirty
eighty thousand seven hundred and thirty six
Compulsory earthwork in NREGS is sometime has been sanctioned on the NREGS. From
unable to accommodate the panchayat’s amongst the75 families in the village 331
need or available conditions like land have applied for the registration and have
resource & seasonal cycle. Many Panchayat the job card. 150 families in the village
do not have adequate land to undertake the requested the Panchayat to provide them the
‘directed ‘work under NREGS and Panchayat job but panchayat could not provide any job
heads are waiting for further directives from to them. Since, according to the Panchayat
Secretary, the required site for undertaking
the state on the issues. In fact an insensitive
the ‘Directed’ activity is not available with
district administration furnished Panchayats the panchayat. 690 people of the panchayat
for not being able to take up the work. Five have submitted a memorandum to the
panchayat secretaries in Betul District of Collector on this issue.
Madhya Pradesh were suspended for their
32
failure to undertake plantation drive. The Secretaries mentioned that heavy rains and
overflowing Tapti River forced them to initiate this.
In many states the release of the instalment to the Panchayat coincides with the beginning
of the rains in the panchayat. Panchayats in such situation failed to undertake NREGS. For
instance digging of a pond in Kholdabagh panchayat in Aurangabad district was
sanctioned but due to heavy rains panchayat could not undertake the work. It is also
found that many Panchayat do not have adequate land to undertake the ‘directed’ work
under NREGS and Panchayat heads are waiting for further directives from the state on this
issue.
Similar complaints were heard in Huddi Tola, Sonepuri and Dhondi Panchayats of Madhya
Pradesh. Members of the Baiga community articulate that the provisions of the NREGS did
not suit the local conditions. Delays in implementation had led to large-scale migration
since the people had no work.
6.5. Inadequate flexibility in guidelines for addressing local issues
Experts on the issue prepared the state and the national guidelines, however, there are
many unforeseen conditions that cannot be anticipated. Panchayats need at least
minimum flexibility and sensitivity to handling by the administration. For instance in
Rajnandgaon district of Chattisgarh, construction of pond and other water conservation
structure are being pushed by the state administration, however, the local soil condition is
such that the water seeps in, and can not be stored for long, if strong bottom base
(pitching) of the pond is not prepared. However, Panchayats with NREGS resources could
not undertake such investments.
Rigid guidelines may impact quality of work
Deepening of the pond in Noguan Darshan Singh village in the Sidhi block of the Siddhi
district, Madhya Pradesh was stuck .The strata had very large boulders and stones
which could not be lifted manually. Panchayats asked for permission for the use of
machine but was refused for the same. It took Panchayat substantial amount of time
and energy to lift the boulders manually. Some of the boulders could not be lifted as
they were too heavy and they are still submerged in the water. The wage rate was also
substantially reduced for which Panchayat could do nothing
Similarly Tappa Panchayat in Dongargarh block of the Rajnandgaon district of

Chattisgarh judiciously planed for the age old water problem in their village. They
decided to regenerate an old pond in their Panchayat which had been reduced to a
dirty swamp. A weed by the name ‘Beshrram’ had covered the entire pond. The pond
was not in use for many years. The local villagers along with the Panchayat were
convinced that pond can meet their future need for water. They made the proposal for
deepening of the pond under NREGS, which was duly accepted. However there was no
provision for payment for clearing the ‘weed’. The cost of clearing the weed was
running in several thousands rupees and could not be borne by the Panchayat or
written off as local contribution. Panchayat had to take several trips to the district
administration, yet their demands were not met. The case was further advocated at
the state level and only then a solution could be found.
33
6.6. Hurdles of technical clearance in Gram Panchayat projects

Before initiating a job, village panchayat is supposed to take technical approval from the
Rural Engineering Services or other competent authorities. Further there is a need for
technical estimates of the work and technical evaluation of the completed projects, for
fixing the value of the project.
Panchayats dependence on technical support may be listed as following
o Getting technical permission for initiating any project under NREGS

o Preparing technical estimates for the project to be executed by the panchayat
o Measurements of the project executed and its final technical evaluation
Most of the states were not prepared to

efficiently handled manifold increase in civil Panchayat Samashpur, Shawla of Pratapgarh
work that was initiated in NREGS. This district in Uttar Pradesh had passed a
resulted in a shortage of technical staff. proposal in Gram Panchayat for de-silting of
a pond in the panchayat. The Panchayat was
Panchayats’ prerequisite of technical sanction
allocated the fund for the activity.
of NREGS Projects, delayed the execution of
Unfortunately the panchayat could not take
the job. Thus, despite having adequate funds up the execution of work because the
in Panchayats and people being ready with technical permission was delayed for very
job cards, Panchayats have failed to provide long time due to non-availability of technical
jobs and could not execute work in time. It is staff. In many Panchayats there are
generally stated by the Panchayat inadvertent delays in granting the technical
representatives that there is an average sanction for executing the work
delay of one month to start any civil work
from the date of submitting the Panchayat’s proposal to the block office. Because of the
delays in technical sanction of the projects it is also reported that elected representatives
have to take several trips to the competent technical authority/person before the technical
sanctions are granted for the projects. The speed at which a proposal gets technical
sanction many a times depends on the Panchayats willingness to bribe the concerned
technical officials.
In the village of Tikaria of Manikpur block in Chitrakoot district, men of the village migrated to the
near by town. The Sarpanch Shyamkali of the village informed that the block office had only
registered 55 people for the job cards and they had not handed over the cards to the villagers.
The Sarpanch wants to initiate the digging up of a pond but the Junior Engineer was demanding
Rs.5,000/- as 1% Commission for sanctioning the proposed pond. The Panchayat Secretary whose
signature is must in the job card is also missing for the last three months. on one hand the
communities expect jobs and on the other, Panchayats have no control over the interfacing
individuals.
There are many such instances Deliberate over estimation and underestimation is
where Panchayats are on one hand common in preparing the technical estimates.
pressurized by the district Overestimates are helpful in pocketing the money
administration to provide jobs under through the corrupt practices, while underestimates are
used for troubling the Panchayats. For instance, Srijan a
N.R.E.G.S, while the technical
voluntary organization was given the responsibility of
agencies harass Panchayats in executing NREGS in selected Panchayats of Tikamgarh
providing technical sanction. It is district in Madhya Pradesh. They made plans for initiating
also common that technical watersheds in the Panchayat. Srijan could execute the
estimates are prepared irresponsibly project in substantially low budget as compare to the
at the whims of the technical staff. estimated cost provided in the technical estimate.
34
The Panchayats are forced to follow such estimates in absence of any alternative
mechanism to check the same.
6.7. Inadequate support in developing sound technical estimates of civil works

Panchayats are required to have sanction on a technical estimates prepared by the
relevant authority. Therefore, panchayats performance is dependent on the speed at
which the estimates are expedited as well as honesty and sensitivity in preparing the
estimates. However, in the last few months of the implementation of the NREGS,
panchayats have faced the difficulties in technical estimates of the civil work undertaken
by them to undertake the job.
Following difficulties faced by panchayats in technical support
o Delay in getting guidance of Government civil engineers/concerned agency in

preparation of technical estimates
o Overestimation and underestimation of costs, during evaluation is common. Both are
used as means of promoting corruption
o Standardized measurement-rate norms are being followed in the district irrespective of
varying local condition or topographical feature in a Panchayat. Many Panchayats, fail
to complete the works at the standardized rate. As wage payments on piecework basis
is disproportionate to the labour put in.
Though most Panchayats, are able to prepare a rough estimate of the projects. They need
support in preparing technically sound projects. Panchayats also need support in preparing
the estimates in technical language. However, the Panchayats can obtain the same from a
specific competent authority. There are no alternatives to take technical help from. There
are also no mechanisms, whereby Panchayats can be given time bound feed back on
technical aspects. This increases the Panchayat’s dependence on the technical staff of the
Department. Mostly Panchayats are willing to appease the technical staff so that their
projects are not tangled in technical approvals.
More so it standardized measurement rate, Standardized measurement rate

followed in the entire district, poses challenges forces Panchayat to pay wages at
on the Panchayat having difficult terrain or lower rate
distant location from the material source.
Chamori Sangram Gram Panchayat in
Though differential NREGS rates are fixed for a Sidhi district of Madhya Pradesh
different type of geographical terrain, yet in undertook the deepening of the wells
practice, standardized measurement rate is under NREGS. The terrain is rocky and
followed in the districts. Thus, a panchayat, there is hard soil at the bottom of the
which is located very far away in the interiors well. Therefore, deepening of the well
have to bear the additional cost of was costlier compared to a normal soiled
transportation of material. Similarly a terrain. Yet the panchayat was paid on
panchayat, which has hard soil or rocky terrain, the standardized rate prescribed in the
district for a normal terrain. To save the
gets no extra cost for excavation work.
loss of the panchayat, the sarpanch paid
a wage of Rs.40-50 to the labourers who
During the execution of the work, large boulders worked on the well deepening.
and similar material are often found while
undertaking the earthwork such deepening of the pond or digging of the well. Use of the
manual labour not only makes the task extremely difficult and time consuming but also
adversely affects the wage rate, as measurement of such works become a difficult task.
35
However the community expects the provisioned rate while the department’s technical norms
only allow the wage rate as per the cost calculation by the technical staff. Panchayat’s
repeated requests to allow use of machines in such cases are normally turned down by the
departments.
6.8. Unfair technical evaluation of the civil works done

Shortage of staff, as well as vested interests normally delay the evaluation of completed
projects of Panchayats. For instance in Madhya Pradesh, there are 5 to 6 Sub Engineers,
posted in a block, managing 60 to 80 panchayats on an average. Therefore, one engineer
is supposed to manage approximately 10 Panchayats. In tribal districts, the hamlets itself
are very sparsely located. Thus, each sub engineer has to cover a large area, especially in
states and districts having lower population density. Many Panchayat heads surveyed in
Madhya Pradesh told that a sub engineer visits the site of Panchayat covered by him/her
approximately not more than once in a month. Therefore, there is little technical support
by the sub engineer. Additionally, there is a gap of one to two months for technical
evaluation. Therefore, projects keep pending at the Panchayat level for final evaluation
reports and submission for payments.
These delays have bearing on the wage disbursement to the community. Since the
material cost is fixed, the Panchayats make all the adjustment needed to equalize the
actual cost evaluated with the wage rate. The delay in payment to the people is
proportional to the time taken in completion of technical evaluation of the work done. It is
a common practice by the sub engineers to call the sarpanches to their residence instead
of coming to the site for technical evaluation of the project. Therefore, unless the project
is cleared, the Sarpanch is very sceptical of making payment to the people. Many a times
the money paid as bribe or mismatch between the actual cost and the evaluated cost are
deducted from the wages of the poor labourers by Panchayats.
Technical evaluation delays and the wage payment of labours
The extremely well intended beginning of NREGS scheme in February in Madhya

Pradesh witnessed detailed instructions from the Rural Development Department to
the districts, blocks and Gram Panchayat for smooth implementation. The office orders
maintained at the Gram Panchayat should have a buffer of project and resources. The
intention was that the panchayat should not face scarcity of projects or resources and
work should be generated easily on demand. However, contrary to this, there has been
inadvertent delay for initiation of project at Panchayat level. The minimum gap of 2-3
months takes place between the proposal sent by panchayat and the technical
approval thereof by the Department.
Gram Panchayat Daura in Sinhawal block of Sidhi District undertook mud bunding and
construction of soak pits around the hand pumps in the month of June under the
NREGS. The Sarpanch requested the Sub Engineer to undertake the evaluation so that
he could safely make payments to the workers. However, the evaluation took place
only after two months by mid August. This puts the Sarpanch in a fix. If he would
made the payments, he would have incurred losses due to discrepancies in technical
evaluation and if he would decided to withhold the wage payment, the community as
well as the officials blamed him for corrupt practices. Since the material cost is fixed,
sarpanches have only the wages to manipulate for meeting the losses.
36
6.9. Delayed departmental response/permission affects Panchayat’s performance

Panchayats are depending on many other individuals and departments while implementing
the employment guarantee schemes. For instance Panchayat need the Patwari’s help in
identifying the Government land available for undertaking construction. Similarly, they
need bank’s support in speedy disbursement of grant etc. These interfacing institutions
are not bound by the panchayat request. There is no time bound procedure for these
individuals/departments to attend to panchayat request. Many a times such individuals
delay the execution of NREGS due to their casual and careless attitude.
The situation is acute in case of forest villages, where panchayats are required to take
additional permission from the forest department before undertaking any construction in
the village. The Panchayats make the proposal and takes several trips to the department
for clearance of the proposal. There are cases, when a panchayat gets tired of
unresponsive forest department and decides to initiate the work without their permission,
they bear the consequences of the wrath of the department.
Forest Department in Forest Villages forces Panchayat to not initiate NREGS
Bhimpur block of Betul district has a Forest Village by the name of Imlidhoh. Koruku
tribals are the dominant habitants of the village and they migrate for approximately 9
months every year.
Imlidhoh was disbursed Rs.3 lakh for initiating the NREGS in the village. The proposal
made by the Gram Panchayat could not be approved by the forest department and the
poor Korukus continued their migration. The villagers made several verbal as well as
written request of the department to pass their proposals.
Subsequently in the month of September the Gram Sabha was organized in the village in
presence of sarpanch Manchilove and the Panchayat Secretary. They again informed that
the proposal has already been sent to the Forest Department. The villages made a joint
application of 94 job cards holder of the village and even took a receipt for the same from
the Sarpanch. This proposal was taken by the villagers and the Sarpanch collectively to
the Forest Department. The villagers threaten the department that if they do not give
permission to the department will have to pay the unemployment allowance to the
villagers or else they will start the work without departmental permission. This organized
effort only could move the department to act and provide sanction for road construction in
the village. However, many forest villagers are running to the forest departments but their
is no time bound process for the departments act upon the proposal on the NREGS placed
by the panchayat of the forest villages
6.10. State’s response on grassroots difficulties of Panchayats
The states machinery, by and large is satisfied with the implementation of NREGS. They
are of the view that inefficiency and problems are temporary and caused by several
reason.
37
Technical support
The workload at the district has increased many folds after the implementation of NREGS.
The competency and available human resources were inadequate to handle the same.
However, it is a teething problem that all the states are facing and almost all the states
are undertaking massive recruitment and trainings to handle the scarcity of the human
resources. Most states like Madhya Pradesh are as stating that they will be able to handle
the shortage of technical staff by December 2006. To overcome the additional workload on
panchayat in record keeping, Panchayats will be provided mates at Panchayat level. Many
of the states have prepared detailed operational guidelines whereby they have also
permitted the use of the machines such as road rollers to improve the quality of the work
by the panchayats.
Panchayat’s autonomy in planning

The states have pushed the specific issue based campaigns like water conservation or
plantation to push the NREGS in the beginning. It was felt by the state authorities that if
such thrust is not given to the Panchayat, there may be very slow implementation.
However, such drives had no other intention. According to the government
representatives, panchayats are provided with all the flexibility to prepare their own plan.
Even after preparing a long-term perspective plan; panchayats can change the plan
according to the changed need of the community. The states have responded by saying
that the panchayats plans are supreme and will be sanctioned. The Madhya Pradesh
Secretary of Rural Development Department also mentioned that they are forwarding a
request to the centre to allow different type of jobs under the NREGA. That is if a
panchayat needs to undertake the construction of a building or check dam or any other
such structures, they should be allowed to do so. Even the material and labour ratio as
fixed in the provisions should also be flexible in such situation.
NREGA has extensive potential for changing the poverty condition in the poorest districts
of the country. Also the programme has tremendous potential for strengthening the local
institution of Panchayats. It is only when the Panchayats are given sufficient autonomy
and authority in executing the NREGS, it is possible that local priorities and development
will be fulfilled along with employment creation. The above section has tried to build up a
case where panchayats if given more flexibility, sensitivity and support in implementation
of NREGA, will be able to emerge as strong local self-governance institutions.
Work in progress under NREGS
6.11. Positive examples of NREGA
Villagers of Bankhedi and Rewadih of
Jungalpur Panchayat through their
initiative and efforts showed that
infrastructure development under
NREGA can change the face of the
locale and at the same time provide
meaningful employment to the local
populace.
As things stood out for decades, the

mud roads connecting Jungalpur to
Bankhedi and Jungalpur to Rewadih
38
were in a bad shape even in dry months. During rains it was impossible to tread the road
even on foot. Villagers had been demanding the construction of WBM roads for the past
15 years but no line department paid ay heed. Finally in 2006 after the promulgation of
NREGA the villagers with the support of a local CSO demanded the construction of roads
and got them sanctioned. The projects together were worth 25 lakhs which involved
construction of total 4 km of WBM roads. A total of 152 hh from Junglepur and 25 hh from
Bankhedi and Rewadih got 35 days jobs during the works which got completed without
any dispute which were common in works carried out by contractors. The new road has
become a beacon of hope and development for the villages boosting not only rural
transportation but also facilitating access to education, participatory decision making and
supply of essential items. Villagers are of the opinion that this positive outcome is a result
of the unique provisions of the NREGA which ensures transparency and proper utilization
of funds.
In Tilgara panchayat of Dhar District in Madhya Pradesh, the works taken up under NREGA
has changed the living conditions of people to a large extent. This year, several activities
were taken under the programme in the village, which has created nearly 16000 man-
days of work in the village. Sustainable infrastructure has been created in the village,
which is benefiting in more ways than one. People gained work during the lean agricultural
period. This resulted in fewer people taking loans from the money lenders.
In the village Aasra of block Dongargaon in district Rajnandgaon in Chattisgarh, after the
initial drive of NREGA most of the households had got registered and got the REGS job
cards, but even after passage of 3 months no work had started in the village. During a
chance meeting with the representatives of a local CSO on 24th May 2006, the villagers
came to know that they have to apply separately for work and just having job card doesn’t
entitle them to guaranteed job. After getting convinced with the idea the villagers applied
for job on the 26th of May. On 10th June they got work in their own village at a pond
deepening site and along with them people from another hamlet of the village got work at
the site.
39
7. Ways forward
NREGA is primarily a new initiative with an existing political will at the centre as well as in
several states where NREGA is being operationalised. The monitoring results of NREGA
implementation have highlighted several issues of concerns from different stakeholders’
point of view. Therefore, it is pertinent to find ways of improving implementation of the
programme:
The following interventions are suggested:
1. Build la r ge sca le cit ize n’s a w a r e ne ss ca m pa ign s for ge n e r a t in g de m a n d side

of N REGA: There are two ways to generate large scale awareness amongst citizens.
The first is the model used in large scale education programmes, which involves
building a cadre of volunteers and taking up village level campaigns to educate citizens
on their rights and informing Panchayats on their responsibilities. The other kind of
mass mobilization is an intensive targeted campaign using electronic media, like the
pulse polio programme that reaches out to almost every family in the country. The
NREGA campaign could be a mixed approach where, on one hand, electronic media
could be used to make the scheme popular while on the other, traditional
communication methods - padyatra, village level meetings, street play, and local folk
media - could be used to reach the most disadvantaged sections of society, along with
the support of civil society organizations.
The awareness campaigns not only provide basic information about the act as well as
card holders’ rights for 100 days employment, but also provide guidance in exercising
their rights. The ongoing efforts of the Government to popularize the scheme as well
as of the civil society to reach out to the potential families need to be up scaled and
intensified. The success of the programme will largely depend on the effectiveness of
demand raised by the citizens.
2. I m pr ove in st it u t ion a l ca pa cit ie s of Gr a m Pa n cha ya t : The panchayats has been

identified as the key implementation organization for NREGA. Under NREGA, a
panchayat of 100 households willing to work under NREGS will receive around Rupees
10-lakh as wages and material cost. Since this amount is almost 3 times more than
what they usually receive, it has serious implications, especially their capacity to use
such a big amount meaningfully by generating employment as well as creating
productive assets.
Moreover, panchayats are required to maintain multiple registers to keep records of

NREGS as prescribed by the Centre/state. It is imperative to build their capacity to
handle the record keeping system as per norms, as many Panchayats continue to use
the single entry system for their accounts.
In order to build Panchayats as an effective executing agency for NREGA, it is an

essential pre-requisite to invest heavily on strengthening their perspective, knowledge
and skills in the following areas:
Developing perspective/ development plans of villages with Gram Sabha

participation
40
Basics of civil engineering and preparing cost estimates of works

Perspective on relevance of social audits/ transparency in business transacted
Sensitivity and vision in involving the disabled, women and other disadvantaged
sections
Skills in book-keeping and accounts, maintenance of created assets, including tax
collection.
3. Pro- active planning for effective engagement of block and district Panchayats:
A clear role must be carved out for Zila Panchayats and Janpad Panchayats in order to
involve them under NREGA. The higher tiers of PRIs need to be more actively involved
in NREGS implementation for visioning districts as a unit of development. The piece
meal approach of treating village Panchayats as units of development will affect
comprehensive livelihood planning keeping in mind the advantages of economies of
scale.
Increasingly, it is being realized that basic work that can be done within the boundaries
of the panchayat will be exhausted in the coming few years, following which a majority
of work will involve boundaries of multiple panchayats, viz. link roads, large irrigation
systems, common markets, etc. Consequently, the higher tiers of Panchayats will have
a more important role in receiving funds for multi-Panchayat projects, and will have to
actively engage households in partnership with the concerned village Panchayat. The
higher tier of Panchayats are also better suited to levy taxes, build mechanisms of
operation & maintenance of large scale assets, and hire staff at the block level for
more efficient & cost effective delivery of services. There is also a need to build
mechanisms for handling joint responsibilities of the three tier system.
4. Ade qua t e a t t e n t ion t o st r e n gt he n villa ge N igr a ni Sa m it is: The success of the

programme will heavily depend on active engagement of the Gram Sabha to make
elected Panchayats accountable for proper utilization of available resources by effective
monitoring. As the Gram Sabha is a broad assembly of all citizens, it is important to
recognize the role of village/ Panchayat Nigrani Samiti. Village monitoring committees
need to be formed as per the guidelines in most of the panchayats in NREGS states.
The members of such committees need to be oriented towards their role and should be
empowered to make their panchayats display basic information of NREGS
implementation in the Gram Sabha. The committee can share some of the
responsibilities of panchayats viz. conducting social audits, identifying families
deserving work under NREGS and resolving conflicts between beneficiaries and
panchayats.
In Sarguja district of Chattisgarh, district administration planned training of village

Nigrani Samitis in every Panchayat involving civil society. A large scale training
programme need to be visualized to reach out to every Panchayat for strengthening
village Nigrani Samities.
5. Fle x ibilit y for t e ch n ica l sa n ct ion of civil w or k s a n d a udit of a ccou n t s t h r ou gh

com pe t e n t pr iva t e pr ofe ssiona ls: Efforts are being made in all states by the
Government to appoint technical staff to support the planning of large scale civil works
as well as technical audit of works done for final payment. Similarly, accounts also
need to be properly audited on a regular basis to maintain highest standards of
financial accountability.
41
The proposed additional staffing under NREGA by the government will take a much
longer period depending on the kind of effort being made by each state government. It
has been observed that the government’s technical staff harass panchayats
representatives in providing technical sanction or conducting financial audit. They also
demand bribes to approve schemes even without visiting the site or reviewing the
document. This results in ineffective supervision, corruption and delay in clearance of
payments to Panchayats. Delayed receipts in Panchayats adversely affect payments of
wages to job-card holders.
There is a need to recognize professionals available at the district or nearby town, such
as chartered accountants, civil engineering firms, architects, etc. who can be hired by
panchayats on rates fixed by the government. This will help expedite the process of
clearing projects and their evaluations. Moreover, it will also create competition and
reduce dependence on the government system. The overall gain would be in terms of
reducing corruption and addressing non-performance by Panchayats on account of lack
of available expertise/technical sanction.
There should also be a time-bound system of technical sanction and evaluation. The
departments should be accountable to meet the fixed deadlines. In case of intended
delays, the departmental staff should also be liable for punishment.
6. I m pr ove d t e ch n ologica l opt ion s for pe r for m a nce a n d m on it or ing: The website
of NREGA is not regularly updated and provides inadequate information on
employment generated, funds allocated, state-wise average utilization etc. There is
also a need to include break-up of the social category of families benefited, i.e. SC/ST
and women-headed households under NREGA. This break-up is essential if the scheme
aims to reach out to the poorest of the poor.
In aggregate terms, such differentiated realities of vulnerable sections go unnoticed.

There are several poor widow women and disabled persons who are not getting
employment. They have a right to be employed as helpers etc. They will be unable to
avail of such jobs unless regular reporting formats create a space for getting official
information on these parameters so that questions can be asked on inadequate
representation of such categories in the list of benefited persons or families.
Currently, the available data is not provided below the district level i.e. block-wise and
panchayat-wise details of funds transferred, families benefited and works completed. It
is necessary to expedite the establishment of computerized system of data recording
and enable its access at the district level as well as keep information below the district
level so that more transparent ways of functioning may be developed at the lower level
of decentralized governance.
7. Establishme n t of infor m a t ion r e sou r ce centres a nd h e lplin e in colla bor a t ion

w it h civil socie t y or ga niza t ion s: There are many remote blocks of the NREGA
districts, which have concentrated population of SC or ST families. Distance from the
district/ block as well as weak infrastructure and low levels of literacy leave deserving
families helpless. Potential families have very basic queries related to various
provisions of the Act and benefits of the programme, which are normally not provided
to them either by the panchayat or by field level government functionaries.
42
The information centres will also be responsible for collecting basic issues highlighted
by the citizens/ families and panchayats, and provide such information to the district
administration or concerned officials at the state level which is implementing NREGA
for quick redressal.
Voluntary organizations selected for each block to run information centres should be
responsible to build capacities of Nigrani Sam it is and strengthen panchayats for their
improved performance, keeping a team of professionals available on call by the
Panchayats. The professional will be mobile and reach to the Panchayat site in case of
any call for support.
8. Br oa d ba sing St a t e le ve l N REGA com m it t e e a n d pr om ot in g cu lt ur e of

inclusiveness: Inclusion of some civil society representatives, district collectors,
district level panchayat presidents, media representatives etc. in the planning process
is essential so that diverse stakeholder concerns are expressed and incorporated. The
meetings of the NREGS State committee must happen on a fixed periodicity, so that
such committees do not remain as a mere formality or a clearing house for policy
decisions proposed by the executives.
A culture of Jan Sunwai on a six-monthly basis should be established at the State level
as a collaborative programme of the State with civil society, along with a formal
release of six-monthly reports on the performance of NREGA by the Government
through a seminar, where various stakeholders, including the media, academia and
grassroots activists present their experiences and point of view. State level committee
members should also remain present during the seminar so that the committee may
contribute more meaningfully in guiding the operational framework of NREGA.
The ways forward provided in this section are based on the emerging issues from the
experiences of the NREGA monitoring. The intensity of engagement of civil society
with the implementation process will provide newer challenges and alternative ways
forward. NREGA should be treated as an evolutionary programme which will not only
affect the fundamental right to live with dignity but also set standards and exemplar
for fulfilling many other promises and guarantees of a welfare state.
43
Annexure
Data From NREGA Website

Table 1. Districts and Number of Rural Households
S.No. State Districts Rural households % to total household
1 Bihar 23 8943456 28.7
2 Chattisgarh 11 1792584 5.8
3 Jharkhand 20 3806040 12.2
4 Madhya Pradesh 18 3890287 12.5
5 Maharashtra 12 3706706 11.9
6 Uttar Pradesh 22 9021545 29.0
TOTAL 106 31160618
Table 2. Registered Families and Job Cards Issued

% Registered hh
that received the
State Rural households Applications Job cards issued job cards
Bihar 8943456 2401836 1071522 44.6
Chattisgarh 1792584 1696860 1534636 90.4
Jharkhand 3806040 1879011 1205239 64.1
Madhya Pradesh 3890287 4281258 4144413 96.8
Maharashtra 3706706 4139778 1094659 26.4
Uttar Pradesh 9021545 2694325 2464057 91.5
TOTAL 31160618 17093068 11514526 67.4
Table 3. Employment Demanded vs Employment Provided

Employment provided in
State Employment demanded Employment provided percent
Bihar 533009 505281 94.8
Chattisgarh 165245 162480 98.3
Jharkhand 501388 501388 100.0
Madhya Pradesh 1913133 1804953 94.3
Maharashtra 192867 183075 94.9
Uttar Pradesh 1792390 1684110 94.0
TOTAL 5098032 4841287 95.0
Table 4: State Wise Expenditure against Funds released

State No. of works Funds released Expenditure % exp to total released
Bihar 17619 40503.38 5171.194 12.8
Chattisgarh 9671 17321.72 9834.02 56.8
Jharkhand 9513 37618.59
Madhya 69783 109384.1 40380.9 36.9
44
State No. of works Funds released Expenditure % exp to total released

Pradesh
Maharashtra 6152 17961.65 4441.42 24.7
Uttar Pradesh 25105 33498.69 8512.28 25.4
TOTAL 137843 256288.1 53334.6 20.8
Data Source: nregp.nic.in, August 2006 Amt. In Rs Lakh
Table 5. Funds Released per Registered Family

State Registered households Funds released Funds released per
registered family
Bihar 2401836 40503.38 1686.35
Chattisgarh 1696860 17321.72 1020.81
Jharkhand 1879011 37618.59 2002.04
Madhya Pradesh 4281258 109384.1 2554.95
Maharashtra 4139778 17961.65 433.88
Uttar Pradesh 2694325 33498.69 1243.31
TOTAL 17093068 256288.1 1499.37
All India Average 35167503 570242.53 1621.50
Data Source: nregp.nic.in, August 2006 Amt. In Rs Lakh
45
Sample villages for the Study

Coverage
State District Block Panchayat Village
Badausa Udaipur
Hadha Talaiyya Purva
Udaipur Naktapurva
Semaria Bhusasi
Dhanael Duwariya
Naraini
Barehada Badausa
Hadha, Nagwara,
Bajrangpur,
Nagwara Barehata, Dhanael,
Semaria, Basrehi
Banda Nandna Nandna

Nagnedhi Semaria Mirdaha
Hastam Bhaggu
Adhrori Baan Baba
Mahua
Tirra ka Purva,
Adhrori, Chak Takuli,
Khamhora Hastam, Khamhaura,
Uttar Pradesh Kusbandhiya ka
Purva
Agara Agara
Jaspura Galoli Galoli
Khateha Khurdha Khateha Khurdha
Puranpur Jatora
Sitapur Kasmanda Vikrampur
Vikarampur
Chanhera
Bar Bar
Lalitpur Bar Bhailoni Lodh,
Bhailoni Lodh Bamhori Sahna,
Kadari
Kihuniyan Kihuniyan
Tikariya Tikariya
Chitrakoot Manikpur
Khinchari Khinchari
Manganwa Manganwa
Barera Rasulpur
Pratapgarh Kala Kankar Samaspur
Samaspur Shelwara
Shelwara
46

Atwan Asigawan Atwan Asigawan
Budhagaon Budhagaon
Hardoi Tadiyavan Patkuan Patkuan
Pura Bahadur Pura Bahadur
Purva Devariya Purva Devariya
Usargaon-Manora Usargaon
Baragaon-Riniva Baragaon
Jalaun Dakor Minora Minora Orai
Uttar Pradesh
Jaisari-Khurd Jaisari
Aunta Aunta
Kaali Pahadi Kali Pahadi
Ganj Ganj
Mahoba Kavrai Mirtala Mirtala

Salarpur Salarpur
Palka,
Manjhalwara
Manjhalwara
Ghodadehi,
Ghodadehi
Lotmara
Paraswara Badgaon Badgaon
Madhya Pradesh Balaghat
Sukdi, Jagantola,
Sukdi
Roopjhar, Lagma,
Baihar Sonpuri Sonpuri, Ukwa
Chinvariya Chinvariya
Lakshmipur
Mariya Mariya
Jamui Kundhur Kundhur
Giddor Patsandha Patsandha
Ratanpur Ratanpur
Sirajabad Sirajabad
Sakra
Gannipur Bejha Gannipur Bejha
Muzaffarpur Kurhni Shahpur Maricha Shahpur Maricha
Bihar
Bochha Rampur Jaipal Vishnupur Narayan
Muroll Pilkhi Gagpati Pilkhi Gagpati
Koilawa Koilawa
Harnaut Barah Kalyan Bigha
Dihri Dihri
Nalanda
Korai Korai
Bihar Sharif MeghiNagva MeghiNagva
Pachauri Pachauri
47

Parsadakshin Parsadakshin
Basuari Basuari
Bihar Madhubani Ghagordiha Amahi Amahi
Nauva Bakhar Nauva Bakhar
Sarauti Sarauti
Baratand, Barhi,
Barhi Purv
Dhobi Tola
Barhidih,
Barhi Barhi Paschim Afeenkoti, Ujjaina,
Telitola
Konra, Podya,
Jharkhand Hazaribag Konra
Harla
Belgadha,
Chanaro Chichikala,
Chanaro
Churchu
Dumar, Lara,
Churchu Baali, Bodra,
Lasod, Jordaag
Bhandraitola,
Bharratola Tumudikassa,
Chowki Bharratola
Korchatola Korchatola
Chattisgarh Rajnandgaon Chhindwadi,

Manpur Chhindwadi Marar para,
Etegarda
Duritola,
Gidhali
Mohla Kanglutola Gidhali
Amatula Amatula
Durkhed, Alsana,
Buldhana Shegaon Durkhed
Janori
Ambala Ambala
Kannad Muddesh,
Gangapur
Maharashtra Vadgaon
Aurangabad
Pandharpur Pandharpur
Aurangabad Gnagapur Shireshaigaon
Khultabad Sulibhanjan
Yavatmal Maregaon Maregaon Narasala
48
Partner Organisations Involved in the Study
PACS Communication agencies

Maharashtra : Sampark, Mumbai
Jharkhand : Manthan Yuva Sansthan, Ranchi
Bihar : Communicators for Development, Patna
Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh : Write Solutions, Bhopal
Organisations which collected data
Uttar Pradesh:
a. Sahbhagi Sikshan Kendra, Lucknow
b. UPVAN, Lucknow
c. FORRAD, New Delhi
d. NYPT India, New Delhi
e. Sarvodaya Ashram, Hardoi.
f. Akhil Bhartiya Samaj Seva Sansthan , Chitrakoot
Madhya Pradesh:
1. Samarthan- Centre For Development & Support, Bhopal
2. Grameen Vikas Mandal, Balaghat
Bihar:
1. Binoba Arogya Awam Lok Shikshan Kendra, Nalanda
2. Ekta Parishad, Bihar/Pragati Gramin Vikas Samiti (PGVS), Muzaffarpur
3. Gramin Ewam Nagar Vikas Parishad, Patna
4. Mahila Sewak Samaj, Sheikhpura
Chattisgarh:
1. Samarthan- Centre For Development & Support, Bhopal
2. Jagriti Sewa Sansthan, Rajnandgaon
Maharashtra:
1. Grass Roots Action For Social Participation (GRASP), Aurangabad
2. Social Institute Programme for Rural Area (SIPRA), Nanded
3. Gramin Samasya Mukti Trust, Yavatmal
Jharkhand:
1. Programme For Rural Actions & Youths Association For Social Service (PRAYAS),
Hazaribag
2. Society For Participatory Action & Reflection (SPAR), Ranchi
49
References
Basu, Arnab K, Nancy H. Chau and Ravi Kanbur (2005): “The National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act of India, 2005”, processed, Department of Applied Economics and
Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Bisht, Arvind Singh. 2006. ‘Rural employment: No guarantee yet’, The Times of India, New
Delhi, 19 February, viewed 13th October 2006.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1420214.cms
Chandra Mohan, N. 2005. ‘Jobbing through to the elections’, Sify.com, 5 October, viewed
15th October 2006
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13956325&page=1
Chary, V.R. 2005. ‘Regs: Grossly Miscalculated?’, The Hindu Business Line, 7 September,
viewed 15th October 2006
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2005/09/07/stories/2005090701071000.htm
Chatterjee, Manini. 2005. ‘Spoils of the soil’ I ndian Express, New Delhi, 16 October,
viewed 15th October 2006.
http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/full_story.php?content_id=79732
Chakravarti, Sauvik 2006. ‘Employment Guarantee a Hoax’, I ndian Express, New Delhi, 6
August, viewed 15th October 2006.
http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/archive_full_story.php?content_id=75729
Dasgupta, Swapan 2005. ‘Rename REGA as Corruption Guarantee Scheme’, The Pioneer,
New Delhi, 14 August, viewed 15th October 2006
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnist1.asp?main_variable=Columnist&file_name=swap
an%2Fswapan55.txt&writer=swapan
Dogra, Bharat. 2005. ‘Jobs and options’, The Tim es of I ndia, New Delhi, viewed 15th
October 2006
Dreze, Jean. 2006. ‘National employment guarantee inaction’, The Hindu, Chennai, 12
September, viewed 13th October 2006.
http://www.thehindu.com/2006/09/12/stories/2006091205181000.htm
Ghosh, Avijit, 2006. ‘Job scheme gets feminised in south Rajasthan’, The Tim es of I ndia,
New Delhi, 26 April, viewed 13th October 2006.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1504700,curpg-1.cms
Grinspun, Alejandro. 2005. ‘Three models of social protection’, International Poverty

Centre, UNDP, Number 17, October
Iqbal, Mohammad. 2006. ‘Public vigilance helps to minimise corruption in rural

employment guarantee scheme’, The Hindu, 28 April, viewed 13th October 2006.
50
Jain, Sachin Kumar. 2006. ‘Digging in times of harvest’, Tehelka, New Delhi, 1 July,
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main18.asp?filename=Cr070106Digging_in.asp
Jain, Sonu. 2005. ‘Rich, poor, all states are in job guarantee net’, The Indian Express, New
Delhi, 8 December, viewed 13th October 2006.
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=83552
Jain, Sonu. 2006. ‘Job Guarantee rolls out, ray of hope in New Delhi shadow’, The Indian
Express, New Delhi, 3 February, viewed 13th October 2006.
Karunakaran, Naren. 2006. ‘NREGS: A national progress report’, PACS Programme,

http://www.empowerpoor.org/backgrounder.asp?report=384#
Khera, Reetika. 2006. ‘Employment Guarantee and Migration’, The Hindu, Chennai, 13
July, viewed 13th October 2006.
Kumar, Rahul. 2006. ‘Indian government comes under civil society scrutiny’, One World
South Asia, 22 May, viewed 13th October 2006.
http://southasia.oneworld.net/article/view/133217/1/
Lakshman, Nirmala. 2006. ‘Employment guarantee — signs of transformation’, The Hindu,

Thursday, May 11
McGivering, Jill. 2006. ‘Is India's rural poverty plan working?’, BBC News, 22 April, viewed
13th October 2006.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4927436.stm
Menon, Sreelatha. 2006. ‘Fake entry is the buzzword at Dungarpur work sites’, Business
Standard, New Delhi, 7 August.
Menon, Sreelatha. 2006. ‘Why low wages do not pass muster here?’ Business St andard,
New Delhi, 9 August.
Menon, Sreelatha. 2006. ‘Rajasthan tops states in job card holders’, Business St andard,
Menon, Sreelatha. 2006. ‘Here the policy is to discourage women’, Business St andard,
Menon, Sreelatha. 2006. ‘Village ‘dole’ takes baby steps amid apathy, graft’, Rediff Money,
7 August, viewed 13th October 2006.
http://in.rediff.com/money/2006/aug/07vil.htm
Morris, Sebastian. 2005. ‘Employment Guarantee Scheme is a still-born child: Try land
reforms’, Financial Express, August 30, viewed 15th October 2006
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=100861
51
Olson, Maxine, 2005. ‘Work for pro-poor growth’, The Econom ic Tim es, New Delhi, 20
October, viewed 13th October 2006.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1268550,curpg-1.cms
Paul, Sohini. 2005. ‘Strengthening Grass-Roots democracy’ viewed 13th October 2006.
http://www.voiceofambition.com/voa/chri/chri-media/strengthening-grassroots-
democracy.html
PRIA, 2006. ‘National Consultation on implementation of NREGA: Experiences and Ways

Forward’, 1 June, database of PRIA, viewed 13th October 2006. www.pria.org
PRIA, 2006. ‘Implementation of NREGA: Emerging Trends’, May, viewed 13th October
2006. www.pria.org
PTI, 2006. ‘States dragging their feet on rural job scheme, says study’, The Econom ic
Times, Chandigarh, 5 June, viewed 13th October 2006.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1619872.cms?epaper
Rediff Money, 2005. ‘Job Scheme: A means to Siphon off money’, 2005. 5 September,
viewed 13th October 2006
http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2005/sep/05guest1.htm
Shah, Mihir. 2004. ‘National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: A Historic Opportunity’,
EPW, December 11, 2004
Shah, Rajiv. 2006. ‘Report slams state record on rural jobs’, The Tim es of I ndia, Gandhi
Nagar, 15 September, viewed 13th October 2006.
Sharma, Abha. 2006. ‘Coming home to a better tomorrow’, Deccan Herald, 18 September,
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/sep182006/editpage1727252006917.asp
Sharma, Sandipan. 2006. ‘Centre planning EGA wage cut, say activists on ground’, The
Indian Express, New Delhi, 28 April, viewed 13th October 2006.
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/3344.html
Shiva Kumar, A.K. 2005. ‘Purposeful employment creation’, Educat ion World Online,
October issue, viewed 13th October 2006.
http://www.educationworldonline.net/eduworld/article.php?choice=prev_art&article_id=4
69&issueid=35
Singh, Tavleen. 2005. ‘Marxists begin to see the light Not Sonia’, I ndian Express, Sunday
August 28, viewed 15th October 2006
Sood, Tanushree. 2006. ‘NREGA: Challenges in implementation’, I nfoChange News &

Features, September, viewed 13th October 2006.
http://www.infochangeindia.org/features380.jsp
52
Sridhar, V. 2005. ‘Empowering the rural poor’, Frontline, Volume 22 - Issue 19, Sep 10 -
23, viewed 13th October 2006.
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2219/stories/20050923005402200.htm
Sulaimani, Kamran. 2006. ‘Paid just Rs 4 per day under rural job scheme, widow moves
Gujarat HC’, The Indian Express, Ahmedabad, June 15, viewed 13th October 2006.
http://www.indianexpress.com/printerFriendly/6515.html
The South Asian. 2006. ‘Community Holds District Administration Accountable’, 11

http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/2006/community_holds_district_admin.html
Thomas, Cherian. 2005. ‘Adding jobs But at what cost?’, International Herald Tribune, 14
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/14/bloomberg/sxsingh.php
Times News Network, ‘UP a laggard in the rural job plan’, The Times of India, New Delhi, 9
August, viewed 13th October 2006.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1874645,curpg-1.cms
Vaidyanathan, A. 2005. ‘Employment Guarantee and Decentralization’, Economic and

Political Weekly, April 16.
Venu, M.K. 2005. ‘Leading Reform is a two-way street’, The Economic Times, New Delhi, 6
September, viewed 13th October 2006
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1221374,curpg-1.cms
Zee News. 2006. ‘NREGA overcomes initial hiccups; 83 lakh provided jobs’, 25 August,
http://www.zeenews.com/spesial_art.asp?aid=317967&sid=NAT
53
This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.win2pdf.com.
The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only.
This page will not be added after purchasing Win2PDF.

Status of NREGA in PACS States

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Status of NREGA in PACS States

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Status of NREGA Implementation

Grassroots Learning and Ways Forward

1st Monitoring Report

Prepared by Samarthan – Centre for Development Support

With Support from

Poorest Area Civil Society (PACS) Programme

We look forward to receiving your feedback on our endeavour.

APL -Above Poverty Line

Salient Features of the Act

Wages to be paid every week not later than a fortnight

Reduced extreme levels of deprivation among the poorest sections

2. Emerging salient arguments on NREGA

3. Objectives of the Study

To review the current status of implementation of NREGA in PACS intervened states

4.2. Issues covered

4.3. Methods of data collection

5. Report Card on NREGA Performance

5.1. Government Perspective on NREGA

5.1.1. Number of Rural Households Covered Under the Programme

implemented. In all, there are Madhya Pradesh

in these states. Amongst the

number of districts (23) under

mentioning here that Bihar has Bihar

under the scheme. While 23

5.1.2. Registration and Job Cards Issued

reveals that of the 5 .3 3 5 .0 5

people were given

5.1.4. State-Wise Funds Released

released directly to the

5.1.5. Release of Resources

Guarantee Fund, which will 2500

receive the grant from the

Amount (in Rs)

implementing the scheme. The

amount released by the Central 433.88

state’s matching share are 0

the total amount sanctioned for

Release of Centre and State Share for NREGP

Release During Current Year

5.1.6. Expenditure Pattern

Expenditure Pattern Under NREGP

Cumulative Expenditure Percentage to total

5.1.6. Key Findings from Government Data

5.2. NREGA from Media’s View

5.2.2. Media Response on NREGA programme implementation

(i) Rural unemployed labourers in Panchayats in Delhi gaining productive employment18

(iv) Reduced rural-urban migration22 in Gujarat and Rajasthan since it enabled

5.2.3. State-wise highlights on performance

(iii) Corruption and neglect26 hindering implementation of the programme in Haryana

(vi) Several states failing30 to implement provisions of the programme. Haryana,

5.3. Civil Society Perspective on NREGA

5.3.1. Awareness of the programme

Awareness efforts by the government agencies

Chattisgarh In most of the places it was observed that the government

Jharkhand During discussions with the government officials, it appeared that

Maharashtra Despite having an employment guarantee scheme for the past 34

5.3.2. Applications for Job Cards

on job cards about the type of work being

Applications for work and their receipt

State Issues on the ground

5.3.3. Availability of Job Cards

Registration and Job Cards

State Issues on the ground