UPA guaranteed 100 days of work to poor, over 96% didn’t get it, says first audit
Ravish Tiwari & Ganesh Pandey, The Indian Express
January 7, 2008
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/258543.html

Building a “Republic of Work,” that’s how the UPA government’s latest advertisement showcases its most ambitious Rs 12,000-crore flagship National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. Under this, households in 200 of the poorest districts in the country are promised, by law, to a maximum of 100 days employment at wages not below Rs 60 per day. The first official reality check for the UPA has come in: barely 3.2 per cent of the registered households could avail of 100 days of employment in one year — between February 2006 and March 2007. And the average employment provided under the scheme was just 18 days.

This startling revelation comes after a six-month performance audit conducted in the field under the aegis of the Comptroller & Auditor General of the NREGS in 513 Gram Panchayats spread across 68 randomly selected districts from 26 states.

Its 91-page draft report, obtained by The Indian Express, raises several question marks over not just the effectiveness of the scheme but the manner in which it is being implemented. “The performance audit...revealed significant deficiencies and scope for improvement,” the report says highlighting a slew of instances from all states of alleged corruption, inefficiency, diversion and misutilisation of funds and unreliable figures.

This assumes significance since the scheme has grown to now cover 330 districts and from April this year will extend across the country. The audit, in fact, makes this point, urging the Centre to ensure that state governments take “swift and immediate action.”

The Centre has sent this draft audit report — prepared by the Office of the Principal Director of Audit, Economic and Services Ministries — to the states for feedback which will be factored in the final report.

Even in the districts audited in Left-ruled Kerala, West Bengal, and Tripura, the average mandays generated during the year was eight days, two days, and five days respectively. In other words, as against the government’s intention to provide an average income of about Rs 8000 per annum, rural households, on an average, received less than Rs 1500 a year. That the mess cuts across parties and states is evident in the audit report. Consider:

• In West Bengal, Rs 38.49 lakh cost was incurred for 20 works that don’t exist.

• In Tamil Nadu, unemployment allowances were not paid in any of the villages on the ground that such contingency did not arise

• In Manipur, a total of 843 works were executed on the basis of “inflated estimates,” resulting in avoidable expenditure of Rs 2.57 crore.

• In Jharkhand, ruled by a Congress-backed government, in violation of NREG rules, on the recommendation of six MLAs, 71 projects for Rs 5.14 crore were taken up (between March 2006 and May 2007) although none was approved by the Gram Sabhas nor in the annual plans. In 10 districts of the state, 6.10 lakh applicants were reported to have been provided employment against 0.70 lakh households.

• In Bihar, Rs 2.77 crore was paid during 2006-07 to unregistered labourers

• In Madhya Pradesh, 214 minors were employed for 462 days and paid wages of Rs 14.63 lakh

• In Orissa, Rs 11,521 was disbursed to seven deceased beneficiaries showing engagement even after their death. Rs 44,852 was paid to daughters of labourers living outside the district.

The audit has identified the key reasons behind the mismanagement: deficient financial management and tracking system, “inadequate” and “delayed” planning of the works, absence of authenticated books for records (a problem found in as many as 14 states), workers being paid wages lower than the minimum wage rate (11 states). Lack of “adequate administrative and technical manpower” at the local level is also marked as one of the main deficiencies affecting the implementation of the programme.