ReportFindings of the Committee of Experts on the Special Social Audit, Maharashtra

8th-12th February, 2014Maharashtra

The Report lists down the observations made by the Committee of Experts (CoE) constituted by the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India to oversee the roll out of the Special Social Audit organized in Maharashtra, during its field visit between 8th February 2014-12th February 2014.

The Committee was joined by the following people on its field visit:a) Nitin Dhaktode, Programme Manager, Society for Social Audit Accountability and Transparency, Government of Andhra Pradeshb) Ujjwal Pahurkar, Programme Manager, Society for Social Audit Accountability and Transparency, Government of Andhra Pradeshc) Anandita Adhikari, Member, Programme Advisory Group Secretariat, Ministry of Rural Developmentd) Inayat Anaita Sabhikhi, Member, Programme Advisory Group Secretariat, Ministry of Rural Developmente) Gopal Mahajan, Pragati Abhiyanf) Ajay Hole, Pragati Abhiyan

The Report is divided into the following chapters:I. Mandate of the Special Social AuditII. Observations of the CoE on the Special Social AuditIII. Observations of the CoE on the Kaam Maango AbhiyanIV. Observations of the CoE through field interactionsV. Violation of Key EntitlementsVI. Violation of Key ResponsibilitiesVII. Key FindingsVIII. Recommendations

1

I. Mandate of the SSA

1. In the context of irregularities reported in the implementation of the MGNREGA in certain districts of Maharashtra, the Government of India directed the Government of Maharashtra under Section 27(1) of the MGNREGA to conduct a Special Social Audit (SSA) in all the Gram Panchayats (GP) of Parbhani, Jalna and Buldhana Districts of Maharashtra for the expenditure made between 2010-2013 by the 31st January, 2014. (No J-12025/1/2012-MGNREGA V, Dated 31.12.2014).

In addition the GoI constituted a ‘Committee of Experts’ (CoE) to oversee the effective roll out of the SSA. The CoE comprised of: i) Sowmya Kidambi, Director, Society for Social Audit Accountability and Transparency. Government of Andhra Pradeshii) Manas Ranjan, Director, Society for Social Audit Accountability and Transparency, Government of Odishaiii) Rakshita Swamy, Consultant, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of Indiaiv) Ashwani Kulkarni, Pragati Abhiyan, Nashik

2. The Committee had its preliminary meeting in Aurangabad District, Maharashtra on 16th January, 2014 to discuss the scope and coverage of the SSA. It was agreed that given the limited time that the Government of Maharashtra had to complete the SSA within, the coverage of the SSA would be limited to all GPs of Sillod Block, Aurangabad District and selected GPs of Buldhana, Jalna and Parbhani Districts of Maharashtra. However, the Committee proposed the following as the minimum non-negotiables that the audit process should comply with: i) Records of works undertaken in GPs by workers from outside the GP should be taken to them in the GPs that they currently reside and read out as a part of the Social Auditii) The Social Audit should adhere to all provisions of the Audit of Scheme Rules, 2011iii) It must be ensured that Ombudspersons of the concerned Districts are present during the Block Level Public Hearing and take suo-moto cognizance of complaints that are registered and pass awards within one week from the date of the Public Hearing. iv) Include PMRDFs and Bharat Nirman Volunteers (BNV) in the social audit teams

It was also agreed that a simultaneous ‘Kaam Maango Abhiyan’ be organized in GPs of Buldhana, Jalna and Parbhani to ensure that the Administration actively facilitates registration of workers’ demand for MGNREGA and ensure timely provision of work.

2

II. Observations of the CoE on the Special Social Audit

1. The SSA took place in the following Districts:

Name of District Name of Block GPs covered Coordinating AgencyAurangabad Sillod Undangaon SPARSH

KhullodPangriGhatambriNanegaonAmbhaiKelgaonRelgaonSirsalaAnviAasdiRahimabadSarolaLihaKhedi LihaPalodMangrulChandapurChinchpurBahuliSasurwadaShivnaDigrasAmsariWagheraDhotraPanwadod BkPanwadod KhJalki BazarAjinthaAnadMukhpathHaldaBalapurKhandalaPimpaldariSaratiGolegaon KhBodhwadWasaiBharadiWadalaWadod Chatha

3

Wangi KhWangi BkModha KhDhanoraKerhalaGevrai ShemiBankinholaWarkhediModha KhDhanoraKerhalaGevrai ShemiBankinholaWarkhediModha BkGhatnandraAmthanaDhawdaPedgaonDeulgaon BazarSawkheda BkJalki GhatShindefalKasodChinchkhedaDongargaonDahigaonPimpalgaon pethBhavanNillodBorgaon KasarGavhali tandaKaygaonTakli JiwragGavhaliAndhariLonwadiMandgaonMashala BkMashala KhDidgaonKhatkhedaUpliPalsiSisarkhedaBorgaon BazarPirolaKotnandra

4

Buldhana Lonar Titwi AROEHANGothra AROEHAN

Jalna Jalna Dhaggi AROEHANParbhani Jintoor Jogwada AROEHAN

2. Observations on SSA of Sillod Block, Aurangabad District

2.1 Audit based on partial records:

It was observed by the CoE that the social audit teams responsible for undertaking social audits in the GPs of Sillod Block, Aurangabad District had not received the complete records of works undertaken and expenditure incurred between 2010-2013 in all the GPs of the Block by the Programme Officer. The following table indicates the status of records received by the Social Audit Teams responsible for conducting the actual audit on field. In addition, it is not clear whether the Social Audit Teams received the records from the Panchayat Samiti/Line Agencies for work done under each GP

MGNREGA Special Audit in Sillod block of AurangabadList of Grampanchayats

Sr. No.

Name of grampanchayat

VSAs Deployed

Name Of CSAFs

Documents From Tahsil

MGNREGA Document From Grampanchayat

Entitlement Audit

1 Undangaon 5

Jayashri Arke & Somnath

Submitted2 Khullod 4 Submitted

3 Pangri 1No Work during 2010 to 2013

1

4 Ghatambri 4 Submitted Submitted5 Nanegaon 5 Sanjay

Arke

Submitted6 Ambhai 4 Submitted7 Kelgaon 5 Submitted Submitted8 Relgaon 4 Santosh

ManjuleSubmitted

9 Sirsala 4 Submitted Not Submitted10 Anvi 6

Balu Kalme

Submitted11 Aasdi 6 Submitted12 Rahimabad 6 Submitted Submitted13 Sarola 5

Akshay Arke

Submitted Submitted14 Liha 5 Submitted15 Khedi Liha 5 Submitted

16 Palod 3 SubmittedNo Work during 2010 to 2013

17 Mangrul 5 Sanket Lokhande

Submitted Submitted18 Chandapur 1 No Work

during 2010 to 2013

1

5

19 Chinchpur 1No Work during 2010 to 2013

1

20 Bahuli 7 Submitted21 Sasurwada 5 Submitted22 Shivna 3 Pramod

AjneSubmitted Not Submitted

23 Digras 5 Submitted24 Amsari 4 Pravin

KarleSubmitted

25 Waghera 4 Submitted26 Dhotra 5

Subodh Arke

Submitted27 Panwadod Bk 4 Submitted28 Panwadod Kh 5 Submitted

29 Jalki Bazar 1 Kailas Jadhav

No Work during 2010 to 2013

1

30 Ajintha 5 Deepak Gorade

Submitted Not Submitted31 Anad 5 Submitted Not Submitted32 Mukhpath 4 Sharad

GoreSubmitted Not Submitted

33 Halda 5 Submitted Not Submitted34 Balapur 5

Rahul Parkhe

Submitted Not Submitted35 Khandala 4 Submitted Submitted36 pimpaldari 3 Submitted Submitted

37 Sarati 1 Kailas Jadhav

No Work during 2010 to 2013

1

38 Golegaon Kh 4 Rajesh Bhiwsane

Submitted Not Submitted39 Bodhwad 4 Submitted Submitted

40 Wasai 1 Kailas Jadhav

No Work during 2010 to 2013

1

41 Bharadi 5 Zuber Shah Submitted

42 Wadala 4 Zuber Shah Submitted

43 Wadod Chatha 6 Zuber Shah Submitted

44 Wangi Kh 4 Vishnu Aghe Submitted

45 Wangi Bk 4 Sachin Shinde Submitted

46 Modha Kh 3 Sachin Shinde Submitted

47 Dhanora 3 Vishnu Aghe Submitted

48 Kerhala 8Bhalerao & Sagar D

Submitted

49 Gevrai Shemi 5 Bhalerao Submitted Not Submitted

6

& Sagar D

50 Bankinhola 3Bhalerao & Sagar D

Submitted

51 Warkhedi 3 Samadhan Raut Submitted

52 Modha Bk 3 Sachin Shinde Submitted Submitted

53 Ghatnandra 6Deepak Gitre

Submitted54 Amthana 5 Submitted55 Dhawda 5 Submitted56 Pedgaon 5

Kiran Giri

Submitted

57 Deulgaon Bazar 5 Submitted Submitted

58 Sawkheda Bk 6 Submitted Submitted59 Jalki Ghat 2 Samadha

n RautSubmitted Not Submitted

60 Shindefal 7 Submitted Submitted

61 Kasod 5 Vishnu Aghe Submitted

62 Chinchkheda 5

Eknath Tagre

SubmittedNo Work during 2010 to 2013

63 Dongargaon 2No Work during 2010 to 2013

1

64 Dahigaon 2No Work during 2010 to 2013

1

65 Pimpalgaon peth 5

Swapnil Ambekar

Submitted

66 Bhavan 5 Submitted67 Nillod 4 Submitted68 Borgaon Kasar 5 Submitted

69 Gavhali tanda 2Dayanand Sansare

No Work during 2010 to 2013

1

70 Kaygaon 7 Submitted Submitted71 Takli Jiwrag 3 Submitted72 Gavhali 7 Submitted73 Andhari 5

Mahesh Vaidya

Submitted Not Submitted

74 Lonwadi 2No Work during 2010 to 2013

1

75 Mandgaon 2No Work during 2010 to 2013

1

76 Mashala Bk 2 Sunil No Work 1

7

Shinde

during 2010 to 2013

77 Mashala Kh 5 Submitted

78 Didgaon 1No Work during 2010 to 2013

1

79 Khatkheda 2No Work during 2010 to 2013

1

80 Upli 5

Vijay Maghade

Submitted81 Palsi 5 Submitted

82 Sisarkheda 2No Work during 2010 to 2013

1

83 Borgaon Bazar 5Santosh More

Submitted84 Pirola 5 Submitted85 kotnandra 5 SubmittedTotal 353 30

Given that as per Section 7(1) of the Audit of Scheme Rules, 2011 the DPC and the PO are responsible for handing over all related records to the social audit teams at least 15 days in advance of the scheduled date of meeting of the Gram Sabha conducting the social audit, the SSA that took place in Sillod is treated as incomplete. Social Audit of many Gram Panchayats were dropped because the records were not produced in time. Eventually, the special social audit took place in a fraction of the GPs initially planned and even in the GPs that were audited, the records handed over were not in full shape and complete.

Being the agency responsible for ensuring the roll out of social audits in compliance with the Audit of Scheme Rules, 2011 for the purposes of the SSA, the Social Audit Unit of the Government of Maharashtra did not ensure a complete social audit in Sillod Block.

2.2 Records of the 19 GPs in which workers from outside Auranbagad District had come to work in and which formed the basis of complaints of non-payment of wages made by the workers, were not provided by the District/State Administration. As per the mandate of the SSA, these records had to be taken to the GPs that the migrated workers currently reside in for verification with the claims of the workers themselves. This did not take place because it was apparently conveyed to the Audit Teams that the records of the 19 GPs could not be provided because the same were in the possession of the Police that is currently conducting an investigation into the matter. However, the Committee contacted the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad to enquire about the records and if he would be willing to share it with them and was able to access the records of the 19 GPs. The team also asked the SP why the records had not been shared with the special social audit team but his feedback indicated that he had not been approached by the District Administration for the same and would have been happy to give photocopies of the same as it would have helped in the investigation of the case

Sr. No. Name of GPs Name of Gram Sevaks1 Vadod Chhatha Mrs. H. S. Shahale2 Borgaon Sarvani Mr. A. G. Mahakal

8

3 Kelgaon Mr. V. M . Pawar4 Kerhala Tanda Mr. V. M . Pawar5 Aadharwadi Mr. V. M . Pawar6 Charner Mr. V. P. Dongare7 Charnerwadi Mr. H. D. Sonawane8 Modhabu Mr. D. A. Dongare9 Gavhali Mr. B. B. Tupe10 Takali Khurd Mr. K. Y. Zond11 Ghatnandra Mr. G. N. Saiwar12 Sirsalatanda Mr. C. A. Borade13 Talani Mr. A. A. Patil14 Jalakighat Mr. R. B. Botkar15 Jambhai Mr. V. R. Jarare16 Digras Mr. S. D. Patil17 Aanvi Mr. K.G. Jadhav18 Bahuli Mr. V.S. Gaikwad19 Dharla Mr. V. R. JarareReference: Letter of Deputy CEO of Aurangabad Zilla Parishad

Therefore the most crucial component of the process of audit that involved taking the records of the Gram Panchayats of Aurangabad District to the GPs of Buldhana District from where workers had migrated to work on NREGA works in Sillod and not been paid wages, was not done hence rendering the process incomplete.

2.3 In an interaction with the Village Social Auditors (VSA) in Bhirandi GP, Sillod Block it was perceived that the VSAs were not adequately trained by the NGO Sparsh in the process and protocol of a social audit as articulated in the Audit of Scheme Rules, 2011. There were some instances where VSAs who participated in the audit were selected by the Gram Rozgar Sewak of their GPs were and sent to participate in the process which is entirely in violation of the Rules. The VSAs had job cards and had hardly worked in MGNREGS. When the CoE asked the VSAs why they didn’t work, their reaction was that the Mukaddam (local contractor) did not give them work or that labour from other places came to work in their villages. Yet, this was not an aspect that the VSAs raised in the Public Hearing held in Sillod. In addition, the Cluster Social Auditors (CSA) who had the responsibility of coordinating the social audits across the Block and facilitate VSAs, were hired only on the 29th January 2014. They underwent training on conducting social audits under MGNREGA for the first time along with VSAs identified. Considering the serious nature of the complaints received by the NHRC and the Government of Maharashtra, the special social audit should have been taken more seriously and a more experienced team that has done social audits previously should have been engaged to carry out the process. The exercise undertaken was more amenable for a pilot social audit but not for a special social audit.

2.4 The Public Hearing organized on 10th February 2014 was attended by nearly 500-600 people including the concerned MGNREGA functionaries. The public hearing was conducted on 10/02/14 at Narmadhabadi Managal Karaylay Sillod, Aurangabad.

a) The organization did the SSA in 85 GPs of the block and only presented 24 issues from 22 GPs at the public hearing. It was observed that during the course of the public hearing a few wage seekers wanted to raise related issues but they were prevented from doing so.

9

b) The SSA team was unable to mobilise the wage seekers from the community to attend the hearing. Out of the 600 people that attended, 353 were Village Social Auditors, 30 were Cluster level Social Audit Facilitators c) The SSA Team had not prepared the Decision Taken Format which is required to be shared with the panellists for them to record decision taken against each complaint. d) The panel accorded concrete decisions against 6 out of the 22 issues that surfaced. The remaining were subject to further enquiry

3. Observations from the SSA in Jalna

3.1 A social audit and a Kaam Maango Abhiyan was organized in Dhaggi GP, Jalna District which concluded on the 10.02.2014

3.2 The SA facilitators of NGO Aarohan who facilitated the social audit in the District were fairly thorough about the procedures to be followed in conducting an audit. They were aware of the rules, the documents required and the formats of presentation. They made an effort to contact the concerned authorities during the audit and before the Gram Sabha.

3.3 The Gram Sabha was attended by the BDO for the first half and the Deputy Collector for the second half. Findings of the audit were not addressed adequately by the representatives of the administration who participated, with respect to corrective and disciplinary action to be taken

3.4 The following were the key findings of the social audit.

a) The works that were opened were not based on peoples’ inputs. Works would be opened on the basis of when the administration would want to open the workb) There were entries of names of ghost workers on muster rolls. Therefore, the names of the actual workers who worked on the NREGA worksites were not recorded on the MR. c) Presence of technical and administrative sanctions that had been granted on the basis of improper recordsd) Families of workers who were taken from Jalna to Silod to work under MGNREGA alleged that the worker committed suicide because of not receiving wages in timee) Denial of work under MGNREGA to workers in their own Gram Panchayat

4. Observations from the SSA in Parbhani

4.1 The social audit was conducted by 8 volunteers from AROEHAN, a Thane based civil society organization. The team spent a week in Jogwada verifying E-job cards, muster rolls and conducting worksite inspections. The social audit exercised culminated with a gram sabha on the 11th of February

4.2 Jogwada village, co-terminus with jogwada panchayat has 282 jobcard holders. The social audit team only verified the job card details of 65 job card holders who had worked in the financial years 2011-12 and 2012-13. 24 assets were verified of which there were 13 plantation works, 3 roop vatika, 6 wells, 1 pond, 1 canal bunding. However the team held public meetings in the village every night and verified muster rolls. During this time, a number of additional issues were recorded.

10

4.3 In addition to the processes followed in the social audit, panchayat functionaries i.e. gram rozgar sewak, gram sewak, sarpanch were also interviewed. A visit to the Jintoor block office was also made and detailed interviews with the Tehsildar, the additional programme officer, the panel technical officer and date entry operators were conducted.

4.4 Overall the social audit team did a thorough job. By spending adequate time in the village, they established contact with different stakeholders in the village and were able to complete the verification exercise rigorously. Site inspections were also well done with measurement being recorded for each site. The organizational leads also supported the teams well by making regular visits.

4.6 The audit however could have benefited from including a verification of payment records which would have helped to triangulate the statements of workers and entries in the muster roll.

4.7 The public hearing was also well managed and the cases were presented clearly and systematically. However, the selection of panelists needed more thought. The panelists included the Tehsildar, the Deputy Collector, Desk Officer from the state EGS department and independent social activists. Their role and the decisions they are empowered to make needed greater clarity

III. Observations of the CoE on ‘Kaam Maango Abhiyan’

11

The Kaam Maango Abhiyan was organized in the following Districts:

Name of District GPs covered Coordinating AgencyBuldhana All GPs of Lonar Block AROEHANJalna Dhagi Panchayat, Jalna Block AROEHANParbhani Jogwada GP, Jintur Block AROEHAN

1. Observations from KMA in Jalna

Two desks of two member teams were put up in different locations in the villages for two days in order to roll out the Kaam Maango Abhiyan (KMA). An attempt was made to generate awareness on the same through posters, ‘prabhat pheri’, and night meetings. The positioned teams facilitated workers in filling up of applications for demand for new job cards and work allocation and issue collective receipts for the same.

2. Observations from KMA in Parbhani

a) Parallel to the social audit, registration desks for work applications were also set up. In 3 days close to 400 workers applied for work for 30 days starting from the 25th of February to the 25th of March. Close to a 100 job card registration forms (form-1) were also filled simultaneously.

b) The GRS had to be handheld through the entire process of form filling. Receipts were publicly distributed during the gram sabha and people were assured that work would be opened in the village on the given dates. In addition to the sanctioned IHHLs, a 4km stretch of road was also going to be measured and sanctioned in the two days following the gram sabha.

IV. Observations of the CoE on status of implementation of MGNREGA from field interactions

12

Representatives of the CoE divided into teams the first day and spent time in both Buldhana District and Aurangabad District. One team met the Deputy Collector, in-charge of the MGNREGS in Aurangabad before proceeding to Sillod. They briefed the Deputy Collector about their visit and also shared information related to the special social audit. The Committee travelled to Gram Panchayats to interact with the labourers and visited work sites in Sillod Block, Aurangabad District; Lonar Block, Buldhana District. The team visited Titavi and Gothra Gram Panchayats in Lonar Block, Buldhana District and Bharadi, Charnerwadi Gram Panchayats of Sillod Block, Aurangabad District.

1. Gross misuse of orders facilitating access of work under MGNREGA to Denotified Tribes and Nomadic tribes

1.1 Based on the Government Order (issued by the Government of Maharashtra in 2006) stating that in matters on which MGNREGA Guidelines are silent, the State EGS Guidelines may be followed, the Collectorate of Aurangabad in 2009 issued a letter authorizing allocation of work to denotified and nomadic tribes in villages to which they have migrated to and currently reside in, even if they are not permanent residents of the village. No where did the order specify that the job cards that are issued in the name of this labour should be fake (registered in the names of non-existent people), postal accounts should be fake (opened in names of non-existent, fictitious people) and fake Muster rolls should be maintained at the work-site.

1.2 The concerned order authorized this arrangement for de-notified and nomadic tribes only, whereas the workers who had migrated belonged to the ‘Aandh Tribe’ who are not nomadic tribes, and are scheduled tribes who live permanently in the villages of their settlement. They were perfectly willing, as has been established through the interviews with various labour as well as the interactions in the Gram Sabha, to have received work in their own villages instead of travelling to other Districts/Blocks/GPs.

1.3 The order only clarified what was an open provision both in the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 and the Maharashtra Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, 2006 and has been grossly and deliberately misused in Maharashtra without any checks or monitoring. This has led to non-state actors such as contractors to run the scheme to their own benefit while the administration chose to ignore or even acknowledge its existence.

As per Section 7.1 of the MREGS: “MREGS will be open to all rural adult members of the household who register for work. They will need to be local residents, that is, residing within the Gram Panchayat, and willing to do unskilled manual work.”

As per Section 1,2 and 4 of Schedule II, MGREGA:

“1. The adult members of every household who-(I) reside in any rural areas; and(ii) are willing to do unskilled manual work,may submit their names, age and the address of the household to the Gram Panchayat at thevillage level (hereafter in this Schedule referred to as the Gram Panchayat) in the jurisdictionof which they reside for registration of their household for issuance of a job card.

13

2. It shall be the duty of the Gram Panchayat to register the household, after makingsuch enquiry as it deems fit and issue a job card containing such details of adult members ofthe household affixing their photographs, as may be specified by the State Government inthe Scheme.4. Every adult member of a registered household whose name appears in the job cardshall be entitled to apply for unskilled manual work under the Scheme”

Both the MGNREGA and the MREGA, 2006 do not imply that workers need to be permanent residents of a particular GP to be able to demand for work and be provided work in that GP. Workers only need to be local residents and therefore can be migrant labourers who have migrated into the GP from other GPs and are currently (even if temporarily) living in the GP that they have migrated to. Therefore the authorization extended by the Aurangabad Collectorate in 2009 only clarifies something that was a provision open in both the MREGS, 2006 and the MGNREGA, 2005 and that is: i) Workers need not be permanent residents of a particular GP to demand for work in the GP they are residing inii) A situation of workers working outside the GP that they have demanded work from arises only when workers demand for work in their GP but are allocated work outside the GP (and further outside the radius of 5 km from where they live in) by the PO because of non availability of works in the GPs where the workers have demanded for work in. Exercising this provision gives the worker his/her right to be paid a travel allowance of 10% for every 5km he needs to travel to reach the work site

1.4 Based on interactions with workers who migrated from Buldhana District to Aurangabad District to work under MGNREGA it was learnt that the workers were under the control of a contractor who moved them from one District to another in pursuit of NREGA work through a well established network of functionaries. Therefore, this was not a situation that was representative of voluntary migration of workers to another District and the latter facilitating their right to work subsequent to their migration. Instead, this was a situation representative of an organized displacement of vulnerable workers from one district to another under the pretext of NREGA works and is therefore tantamount to bonded labour. The practice of giving work to people through the Mukaddam continues as was established in the interaction held in Titavi Gram Sabha on 9th Feb, 2014.

2. The CoE observed that workers were systematically denied their right to be allocated work in the GPs that they were residing in temporarily. Workers were provided work outside their GPs not due to a non-availability of adequate works in the shelf of works of the GPs that they belong to but because an organized mechanism of having a formal mechanism to capture demand in a labour intensive area was not put into place. The demand from the labour for work was high and the supply was made scarce or nil pushing the labour to access Mukaddams for work who in turn were approached by the big contractors to bring the labour to work in other Blocks and Districts with a wage rate being fixed at Rs.44 for one cubic feet of work done.

Case Study: Migration of Aandh Tribes for SurvivalDistrict: AurangabadBlock: SillodWage Seeker Name: Mr. Datta Dhondu Pawar from Gotra Village of Buldhan Dist. Category: ST

14

Mr. Datta Dhondu Pawar, resident of Gotra village of Lonar block worked on daily wages for the survival of his family. He migrated to Sillod block of Aurangabad district for work along with 23 other people from Lonar block of Buldhana district during 2009 to 2010. One day he happened to meet Mr. Nawale, a contractor who informed Mr. Pawar about the work available at Sillod block. As Mr. Pawar did not see any other work option in his own village, he accepted the offer to work in Sillod block. In 2009, He migrated to Charnerwadi village of Sillod with 23 people. The laborers were informed that they will be paid based on the quantity of work they do in a day. They were also informed that they will get Rs. 40 to 44 for per cubic meter work. All of them were assigned the earthen bund work on the land of Mr. Vithal Pardeshi, who is a resident of Charnerwadi village and the owner of 23 acres land (MGNREGS guidelines clearly stipulate that work cannot be done on anyone else’s lands but that of Small and Marginal Farmers who have 5 hectares of land, SC/ST families, BPL families) where the laborers worked for more than 5 months. The engineer Mr. Kharat used to visit the work sites for taking the measurements. Initially the contractor Mr. Nawale and engineer Mr. Kharat took the photos of workers on worksite and were writing the musters of their names but later it was stopped. They had also opened the postal accounts in the names of the workers and had drawn money from post office twice or thrice, with the signatures of laborers, but they did not pay the same amount to the laborers. The contractor Mr. Nawale and engineer Mr. Kharat gave only Rs. 200 to 250 per couple towards their expenditure at the weekly market. The laborers had demanded many times about their payment but the contractor and engineer had always made false promises and kept them hanging on. At last, when the assigned works were completed, the contractor arranged a vehicle for the laborers and sent them back to their village without paying their wages. The laborers did not have any options except to trust the contractor and wait. Even today, after 4 years their struggle continues and protests at many places have not ensured that they receive their total wages. As per Mr. Dattu Pawar and other laborers, the government owes rupees 50,000 to 55,000 per couple who had worked along with him. In this case, the works have been executed through contractors under MGNREGA and the local laborers were not employed. The laborers from other block were engaged in the works and the fake job cards and muster rolls were maintained by the local administration along with fake postal accounts and passbooks. The actual laborers have also not received any extra travelling allowances cost or wages for their works. The confusion reigns large because the names of the labour who worked haven’t been registered in the muster rolls, the job cards are not in the names of the labour and the accounts have also been opened in fake names. Hence, the administration is clueless about who worked and didn’t work, how many days they worked or did not work and who has to be paid how much as the entire system ran like a fake racket.

3. Allocation of work was not based on a demand for work application submitted directly by the worker to the GP/Administration but on the basis of opening of works known only to the District and Block functionaries, the Contractor and the Mukaddam.

3.1 Almost all workers in the village in Parbhani had never registered for work and even said that that was the first time they had seen form-4. The GRS did not know anything about the E-muster roll which requires demand to be registered beforehand.

3.2 However, there was a select group of “better informed” workers who had filed applications for work previously. These were also workers/job card holders on whose land work was ultimately taken up. On studying the demand registration process backwards from the point of data entry, it was learnt that a demand for work form has to go through five levels of approvals explained below:

15

- Form-4 signed by worker and submitted to GRS/Gram Sewak- Form-4 submitted by GRS/GS to APO or directly to the BDO- A demand for E-MR form is attached to form-4 and signed by the GRS and GS at this stageThis format also contains the technical details of the particular work assigned to the demand, signed by the panel technical officer- The BDO signs on the demand for E-MR form after all the above signatures/stages are complete and hands over to the APO- The APO signs on the demand for E-MR and hands over to the data entry operator for entry in the MIS and generation of an E

Demand registration is therefore not taking place as a stand alone process and takes place when technical sanction, work allocation and generation of E-MR are ready . There is no room for a worker to demand work at any point of time for which he/she will be given a dated receipt and the details of the application will be reflected in the MIS. Given below is proof that allocation of work takes place without the knowledge of workers, and definitely not based on their demand.

Demand form submitted for entry without signatures and receipt intact

Demand for E-MR form with 5 sets of signatures

16

4. Unclear strategy for incomplete works

During the visit, the team found four incomplete wells in Jogwada which threw up several important issues for consideration. An illustrative case is the well on Tukaram Wadke’s farm. While Rs 1,90,000 had been sanction for this well in FY 2011-12, only Rs 70,000 had been released so far. Approximately 25 workers had worked on the well for close to three months and dug about 35 feet. However, when the lining of the well got delayed, the sides of the well slowly began to collapse and close to 15 feet of mud piled up inside the well. Tukaram explained that he was unable to purchase the stone and cement needed to line the well without any payment and the block administration said it would not release any more money unless the well was completed. This situation led to work remaining in an incomplete state for over 1.5 years. What the administration will need to consider is a system of making advance payments for material purchases effective even though it was learnt that similar efforts have been introduced through Government Orders. Individual beneficiaries like Tukaram do not have the finances to buy material themselves and require the support of the administration to negotiate or set up an agreement with material vendors to make materials available and seek reimbursements either directly from the block or through the GRS/GS.

17

5. There were two copies of JCs maintained for each HH. As per the State Government’s instructions, along with a JC being vested with the HH, a copy of it would also be maintained at the GP. This has opened up the opportunity of peoples’ JCs being grossly misused without the knowledge of the people listed in the JC. The State Government’s instructions are in violation of the very basis on which Job Cards are issued. When the CoE enquired about the need for such a guideline it was informed that the demand came from the field functionaries such as the Gram Rozgar Sevaks etc who said that they needed the Gram Panchayat copy for inspections that would take place. The Act clearly specifies that the Gram Panchayat only needs to maintain a register in which the details of each household, their job card number and a photo of the family should be kept

Case Study: Duplication of Job CardsDistrict: BuldhanaBlock: LonaraGram Panchayat: GotraWage Seeker: Mr. Shankar Vishnu KokateJob Card no. MH-22-011-192-002/428 and MH-22-011-192-002/125

Mr. Shankar Vishnu Kokate, resident of Gotra Gram Panchayat is holding two job cards issued on his name. Job Card- MH-22-011-192-002/428 was issued to him on 9th November 2007 and job card- MH-22-011-192-002/125 was registered on his name on 8th August, 2011 while the postal account number is the same for both the job cards. As per the online job card (MH-22-011-192-002/125) available with the social audit team, Mr. Shankar Kokate has worked on avenue plantation work at Veni to Nimapur road for 6 days during 08/08/2011 to 13/08/2011 and received Rs. 723.9 paisa. On his second job card (MH-22-011-192-002/428) it is shown that he has worked for another 18 days, (2 days during 01/08/2010 to 02/08/2010 and 10 days during 16/08/2010 to 25/08/2010) on ‘tree plantation work from Gotra to Nandra road’. But, during the door to door verification carried out by observers, he clarified that he has not worked on both the works and has not received any money. He has submitted a written complaint to the social audit team about the same.

District: BuldhanaBlock: LonarGram Panchayat: GotraWage Seeker: Mrs. Laxmi Rambhau Shejule, Job Card no. MH-22-011-192-002/427 and Job Card no. MH-22-011-192-002/1129

Mrs. Laxmi Rambhau Shejule wife of Rambhau Raghoji Shejule lives in Gotra village of Lonar block. She was issued a job card MH-22-011-192-002/427 on 9th November 2007 for family of four members. She has been using this job card for getting the work under MGNREGA. Mr. Rambhau Raghoji Shejule, husband of Mrs. Laxmi is also holding another job card (MH-22-011-192-002/1129) in the same family which was issued to him on 4th November 2012. Interestingly, Mrs. Laxmi Rambhau Shejule has been getting work with the old job card issued in 2007 but the local administration has provided another job card to her family. Issuing two job cards to the same person and the households is an indication that the system that has been put into place is neither robust nor is there any monitoring to ensure such irregularities are identified and curbed.

6. Workers were not being paid their entitlement of a travel allowance of 10% for working on worksites 5km outside their area of residence. In the Gram Sabha held in Titavi GP, Lonar

18

Block, Buldhana District, when the CoE read out muster rolls of MGNREGS works undertaken as recently as in December, 2013, by the Irrigation Department, the concerned officer stated that the mukaddams get in touch with him regularly and know where the works are. He also stated that it was the Mukaddams who bring the labour to the worksites in other Gram Panchayats. If the distance is more than 5 km then they automatically give a written assurance that they will not claim the 10% transport allowance. Where in the MGNREGA is there a provision that allows contractors to capture demand for labour and work, on behalf of the state formally or informally and allows them to enter into agreements in writing with the line departments about not claiming transport allowance and how the State Government of Maharashtra has interpreted this is not clear nor is there any written instruction that the CoE could access. Further, the 10% transport allowance has not been paid anywhere in Maharashtra for MGNREGS works even if the labour has come from a distance beyond 5 km.

7. Names of workers who had worked on MGNREGA in GPs that they did not live in were not reflected on the Muster Rolls maintained of the works that they worked on. Therefore, muster rolls indicated forged names of people, some of whom did not even exist, as having worked on those works while the details of those workers coming from other GPs/Blocks/Districts who actually worked on these works was never recorded leading to a situation where the State Government is clueless about who has worked and who hasn’t or how many days they have worked. The records created and maintained, checked, super-checked and certified by the officials in the Block and district are fictitious and false

Case Study: Non-Payment of Wages, Job Cards not with Labour and Fake Muster Rolls

Name: Atmaram Jija Turerao Job card No : MH-16-001-033Job Registration Date: 21/01/2008Village: Dhagi, Block: Jalna, District: Jalna, State: Maharashtra. House code no: 53During the SSA, the team met Mr. Atmaram Jija Turerao who said that the Gramsevak asked him to give a photo of his, which he handed over to him. The Gramsevak issued job cards and an account was opened in his name. He and the other labour with him worked as per the Gramsevak’s instructions. The signatures and thumb impressions of the labour were taken on the register and no musters were maintained at the worksite. The work measurement was not done in front of the labour. The labour was not paid any amount while they were working. After one year they were given 100 rupees per person per day. The labour waited for a year because they felt that government money takes time to reach. When the information provided by Atmaram was crosschecked with MIS data, it was found that he has worked on work ID: (1816001033/IF/523251) well:-dhagi175 for 72 days along with his family members. On his name payments worth Rs. 13,014 have been made. When he was asked about the same, he said, he was the only person from his family who worked on the worksite along with other job card holders. He also informed the team that his job card and the account passbook were with the Gram Sevak. When he asked the Gramsevak to return his job card and passbook he was told to pay Rs.50 for getting it back. He added that it was because of the SSA team that he could get the online number of his job card and get a print out of it. It is interesting to note that while Rs.13014/- has been credited and withdrawn in Atmaram’s name and job card number, he is clueless about who worked in his name, signed on his behalf and who withdrew the amount in his name from the post office or bank since he wasn’t involved in it at all. The Special Social Audit team found that only 44 out of 94 job

19

cards had been given to the labourers and the remaining 50 were with the Gramsevek and Gram Rojgarsevak of Dhagi Grampanchyat.

7.1 There were four types of irregularities in the muster roll that were found during the audit exercise in Parbhani as well. a) people who were on the muster roll, stated that they had worked and been paid when interviewed, but their participation had been contested by many during a public meeting. The list of such people included many of those who were perceived to be the “sarpanch’s associates” b) people who had not worked, had not been paid, but their name was on the muster roll and money had been withdrawn on their behalf c) people who were not residents of the village or could not be identified on the muster roll d) ineligible persons had their name on the muster roll such as the gram rozgar sewak himself. When these cases were taken up during the gram sabha, the GRS did not contest any. Given that the muster roll is counter signed by the GRS and the GS, they are fully culpable.

7.2 As these works were actually done by workers whose names were not on the muster rolls and money has been paid based on certain muster rolls it is clear that the muster rolls on which the payments have been made are fake. As muster rolls can only be issued by Block/Tehsil Head it is apparent that the Block/Tehsil officials have not done their due diligence while issuing Muster Rolls let alone while certifying them before payments. In several examples we found out that the people whose names are on the muster rolls were not even aware that their names are on the MRs and they have not received any payment based on those MRs. So it is clear that the MRs were not issued based on any work demand by such people. Hence the MR issuing authority indeed issued the MRs with full knowledge that they were being filled with fake names. Since the wage payments were raised through fake muster rolls and much of it was subsequently withdrawn without the knowledge of those people from whose bank/post accounts it was withdrawn there is a clear case of cheating and forged signatures/thumb impressions. Payment made in the name of such people could not have been made possible without the active collusion of banks/post office officials who were responsible for verifying that money was being paid to the actual owners of the account or based on their genuine signatures/thumb impression.

Interview with the Mukadam in Titavi Gram Panchayat, Lunar Block, Buldhana DistrictWhen he was asked who informed him about the MGNREGS works in Sillod and the need for labour from other districts, he stated that a contractor Mr.Tukaram Nawale had asked him to bring the labour. He was told that there were Nala Mati Bandh (small dams) works that needed to be done and he needed labour for it. The contractor told him that works under Employment Guarantee scheme were available in these panchayats and that the works would be task based. The amount of task completed by the labour would be paid at Rs. 44 per cubic meter. Each pair completed 10 to 16 square meters per day. At the beginning the contractor told them that the payment would be made at the post office. But, during the work the contractor and others came and took photos of the labourers and put on Job cards and took their payment from post office. When the job cards were made, a lot of fraud took place by changing the husband and wife details on the job card, with various permutation combinations but put the same people’s photographs taken in different places. Tukaram Nawale had some organization for De-notified Nomadic Tribes and knew the BDO, Mr.Dhege from before. The labour and Mukadam trusted Tukaram Nawale because he was their relative and from Pimpalgaon, Jintur Block of Jalna District. Since he was their relative that’s why the labour went to work with him. They thought he was from their caste, a Tribal leader, had done good work for their people therefore trusted him.

20

It was at the BDO’s behest that Tukaram asked us to come and work in Sillod. The labour was paid a subsistence allowance of Rs.200/- a week to buy food supplies from the local market. This was paid by the contractor at times and by the BDO at other times. The Mukadam also told the CoE that Nawale was constantly with the government officers and knew everyone from the District to the Block level. The Mukadam believed that the reason why the labour didn’t get paid was because of the BDO and Engineer since they were also equally responsible for everything that happened along with the Gram Sevak and Contractor Tukaram Nawle. These people didn’t allow the labour to enter in the Post office. They created the job cards, took the pictures at the worksites for job cards. The jobs cards were also fake created by them, where they put somebody’s wife’s photo with somebody else’s names. They opened fake accounts and took the payments forging our signatures, all the while informing the labour that the money had not been credited since the amount had not been received. When the labour kept agitating for the money and a few suicides took place that is when they realized that 2.68 crores had been taken from these accounts and booking expenditure through these job cards. The Mukadam stated that the people involved in the fraud were so powerful that even the post office people had colluded with them and helped in withdrawing the amount.

8. Collusion with the post officeNone of the workers interviewed had post office passbooks in their possession although the job card list printed from the MIS indicated that they all had post office accounts in their name. The audit team learnt that the passbooks were hoarded by the GRS or the post master. It was evident that the post office accounts were being used without the knowledge of the actual account holders.

9. One of the principal problems that surfaced at that point of time was that workers had no interface with Government Officers responsible for implementing those works, but were coming through different layers of middlemen (‘mukaddams’). But while people who were brought by the mukaddams to work at particular sites outside their GPs have grievances against those mukaddams not meeting their commitments and paying their wages, it is not merely a case between mukaddams and workers. It was seen that works that were essentially implemented by the mukaddams through labourers from outside the block and the district have been shown as NREGA works and Government money has been spent on that. Essentially, MGNREGA funds were being used to develop private lands through the well established network of mukaddams. Works such as Mati Nala Bandh (Earthen Bunds) have been taken up in the lands of farmers who have more than 20 acres of land and some of them have more than 7 such bunds that have been built in their lands using MGNREGS funds.

Interview with Smt. Sangtia Prahlad Kokate, Titavi Village, Lonar block of Buldhan District Maharashtra Sangita Prahlad Kokate was one of the labourers who were taken to Sillod Block in Aurangabad District to work on the MGNREGS sites. She is an Andh tribal which is not a nomadic group. She has 3 daughters and a son. Her eldest daughter was forced to drop out of school to take care of the other 3 children after her husband committed suicide and the entire responsibility of the family fell on her shoulders. She along with her husband was in Sillod Block for 2 years and worked on numerous earthen bunds (Mati nala bandh) built under the MGNREGS. When she was asked if they were in Sillod continuously for 2 years, she said that they were first taken there the first year from Diwali (September) to June and then came back to Titavi in Buldhana District. They went back the following year to work on the MGNREGS sites. It is interesting to note that the only time they migrated was when there

21

was no agricultural work available. It is amply clear that there is a tacit understanding between the big farmers and the system that during agriculture season, MGNREGS works are not to be carried out. Infact, the earthen bund works that were carried out was in the land of farmers who have big land holdings such as 20-30 acres and belong to Rajput, Deshmukh and Shinde families.During the period that the labour from Buldhana district was in Sillod Block of Aurangabad District, they were given a subsistence allowance of Rs.200 a week to buy food items etc by the BDO. They did not receive any advance payment for the work nor did they get paid subsequent to the work being completed. The fact that the works were being done by a contractor and the implementing agency was aware of this is because the labour who was interviewed clearly stated that they had been paid the subsistence allowance every week by the Block Development Officer. They were however, clueless about what the Mukadam received from the BDO.Sangita clearly stated that she and her husband had been taken to Sillod by the local Mukadam (contractor) who was from Gotra village. They had approached the Mukadam for work as there was no work available in their village and he in turn took them to Sillod. At the worksite the labour got no worksite facilities as indicated in the act. They also did not get registered as wage labourers and receive job cards or account passbooks. The travel allowance given to the MGNREGS labour was also not paid to them even though they traveled 250 kilometers out of their district to another district for work. The labour lived atypically like most migrant labourers in temporary huts at the worksites for the period that they worked in Sillod.When Sangita was questioned further about why they did not prefer to work in their own villages and chose to migrate, she said that despite seeking work, they didn’t open any work in the village. Whatever work they did open for a short time, was in June or July, for one or two months. There is huge labour availability in the village, everybody wants work because in agriculture they only get Rs. 60 per day and how can people manage families in this amount? The CoE asked her if she would work in the village at Rs.162/- per day on the MGNREGS worksites, she responded saying not just she but others would also stay back and work. She also added that who would want to migrate if work is available in our own village. Sangita’s statement was in direct contrast to what the Tehsildar, BDO and official from the Agriculture Department in present in Titavi village had to say during the Gram Sabha, that labour preferred not to work in their own villages but migrate to other Gram Panchayats, Blocks and Districts, even when they are not paid transport allowance. They also stated that the labour signs agreements with the line departments that they will not ask for transport allowance. What is fairly inexplicable is how labour enter into informal agreements with Departments, violating the MGNREGA and how line departments or even the revenue machinery accepts such a letter or agreement? Unless, there is a contract mechanism that is operating, no such adhoc practices can exist and be encouraged within the implementation of the Scheme. Sangita further stated that even agriculture work was limited and in summer they had nothing at all to fall back upon. It is amply clear that the attempt is to create scarcity of work and then force the labour to move to other places through the contract system where the labour has absolutely no bargaining power. She will now have to migrate out of her village in search of work and leave her children behind. The Kaam Maango Abhiyaan that took place simultaneously and the labourers overwhelming response to it shows very clearly that there has been a tacit understanding to keep the labour demand low by not registering it formally. In the absence of work in the village the labour migrates to cut sugarcane in neigbouring districts and States. So much so, that the big farmers pay an advance to the contractors to make sure the labour migrates and puts pressure on the system to ensure that no MGNREGS

22

works are started during that period. All labour has to be in pairs and hence, single women find it impossible to get work. Sangita, did not go to cut sugarcane because once an advance is paid to them, they are not allowed to return and she was worried about leaving her children alone.Sangita’s husband committed suicide a few months ago because of a huge loan that they had taken to build a house from the bank and their inability to pay it. Added to it, their hopes of getting paid for the work that they had done in the MGNREGS works in Sillod was not realized despite their protests and demand from the Government. She also dispelled any rumours that her husband had committed suicide because of family tensions.

10. There were instances identified where works have taken place on private lands while recording it as works done on public lands. . The concerned authorities wanted to be extra sure and so they took an undertaking from the land owners that they were donating this land on which the MGNREGS work was taking place to the government for public use. When we asked the farmers if they had signed such an undertaking, they flatly refused saying that they would never promise their land to the Government for public use.

11. There were cases that we observed where physical records were not corroborated with the MIS Records. Therefore, there is a gross mismatch between records maintained by Government of Maharashtra and the records submitted to the Government of India through the MIS.

Case Study: MIS Data MismatchDistrict: BuldhanaBlock: LonarGram Panchayat: GotraWage Seeker: Mr. Ashok Sakladi Chate Job Card no. MH-22-011-192-002/1089

Mr. Ashok Sakladi Chate resident of Gotra village belongs to the Vanjari community which comes in VJNT (Vimukta Jati-Nomadic Tribes) category. His job card was registered on 1st December 2010. There are only two members in his family. But as per the MIS data, total 10 members are shown in the family who do not have any relation with the job card holder and interestingly they do not belong to the same community. The following table indicates the same- Details of Family as per Job Card

Sr. No. Name Sex Age Category

1 Ashok Sakladi Chate Male 38 VJNT2 Aruna Ashok Chate Female 34 VJNT3 Suresh Laxman Dakhore Male 41 ST4 Chhatrughan Kisan Dhotre Male 40 ST5 Laxmi Chhatrughan Dhotre Female 34 ST6 Laxmi Narayan Dhotre Female 28 ST7 Shivnanda Gajanan Ghate Female 25 ST8 Dilip Udhhav Dhotre Female 22 ST9 Savita DIlip Dhotre Female 20 ST

23

10 Sheshrao Aashruba LekurwadeMale 44 ST

It has also shown that all these 10 members have worked with the same job card from 2011 to 2013 and received the wages for their work.

11.1 In Parbhani, There were three kinds of cases with job card registration and distribution. The first was where a household the old (expired in 2010-11) job card and their job card number appeared on the job card list printed from the MIS. The second case was where a household had the old job card, but was not on the list printed from the MIS. The third case was where a household had no job card at all. The Gram Rozgar Sewak, Gram Sewak or the Additional Programme Officer were unable to explain the reasons for this inconsistent distribution of job cards and entry in the MIS. When asked whether anyone in the village had received the new job cards, people angrily told the team that they had even paid Rs 100 for photographs two year ago but never received the job cards. To his own admission, the GRS informed the team that a “private agency” had taken photographs in the village, taken Rs 100 from people and handed them receipts for Rs 10. He claimed he had no information on the whereabouts of the photographer or what happened to the money. Even where jobcards were in possession of the household, no entries had ever been made.

12. It came to the notice of the CoE that there has been a Police Investigation underway since the past two years based on a FIR lodged by the District Administration concerning irregularities noticed in the implementation of the MGNREGA in the Aurangabad District. Based on the letter issued by the District programme coordinator, MGNREGA/ District Collector (Letter No.2012/EGS/Dept/7/1094,dt.28/05/2012), the Tahasildar of Aurangabad registered two First Information Reports (FIRs) at Ajintha and Sillod police stations on 04/06/2012.

12.1 Looking seriously into the matter the police had lodged a first information report and framed legal charges under section 420 of Indian Penal Code against the prime accused Mr. Tukaram Navale for irregularities (signing on withdrawal slip and not paying wages to the labourers) in MGNREGA. However it is important to note that the FIR lodged by the state is against a non state actor, a contractor Tukaram Nawale who technically and formally had no role to play in the implementation of the MGNREGS. It’s impossible for a non state actor to have played such a pivotal role in the fraud that took place for such a long span without the active connivance and compliance of other state actors and functionaries who were directly involved in implementing the scheme and those in-charge of monitoring the scheme.13. Continuation of systems that perpetuated the crime

The problem of inter district transfer of labour and unpaid wages that has been reported in the media and brought up as workers' grievance can be dated back to 2010-11.The conditions that led to this situation continue to exist as of today. The very workers who were cheated in through being taken to work in other districts are still being taken outside their gram panchayat to work at MGNREGA projects. Just as they had to migrate to a different district and work there, they now migrate to another gram panchayat work there living in makeshift accommodation. They are not enabled to apply for work in their own GPs and remain dependent on the middleman to learn about work opportunities. The modus operandi is that the middleman is told by an official about a given project and then he mobilises workers for the same. Often the mukaddamn or his/her family member receives payment as water

24

provider. Apart from this he often receives some kind of monetary or non-monetary benefit from the worker. In any case the worker remains indebted to the middleman therby indicating bondage in labour.

This arrangement is not possible without the complete knowledge of implementing officers as the workers can be provided with employment only when they have applied for work. In a situation where work is not available in the GP that they live in, then workers can be assigned work in another GP or more than 5 kilometres away from their village. But in such a case they have to be provided additional 10% as allowance for travel etc. No such allowance has been paid to the workers who have migrated. On being asked, the response of the officials was that the workers had given in writing that they would not claim the 10% allowance that they are entitled to while working in another GP. How could such an undertaking have come from the workers unless they were specifically asked to give such an undertaking. At the time of applying for work how could they know that work will be provided outside their Panchayat and at a specific place.

IV. Violation of key entitlements

25

1. In clear violation of Section 11, Schedule I of the MGNREGA there is an active presence of contractors in the implementation of the Act

2. In clear violation of the provisions of the Schedule job cards were not found in the possession of the workers listed on it. In addition, there were instances of job cards being issued to ghost workers that came to surface.

3. In a clear violation of Section 5, Schedule II workers were not seen to be demanding employment under the programme by submitting a formal demand for work form. Instead, the entire mechanism of demand was one that was controlled by middlemen

4. In a clear violation of Section 12, Schedule II, workers were forcibly made to work in GPs falling outside a radius of 5 km from where they resided, into other Blocks and Districts, and not paying them a travel allowance of 10% for every additional 5km as provided for in the Law.

5. In clear violation of Section 5, Schedule 1 works creating individual assets were completed on lands owned by households inconsistent with what it prescribed

6. In clear violation of Section 29, Schedule II wages were not made to workers who have completed work under MGNREGA within 15 days of them completing their work

7. In clear violation of Section 12(3), Section 14(3) and Section 15(5) of the MGNREGA, there has been a complete lack of monitoring of the implementation of the Act by the authorities mandated to oversee the effective roll out of the Scheme at the State, District and Block Level

V. Violation of Key Responsibilities (As detailed in the MGNREGA Operational Guidelines)

26

S.No Function Functionary Responsible Observation1. Registration of families whose

members are potential NREGS Workers

SarpanchGram Rozgar Sahayak

- Denial of registration of eligible applicants- Registration of bogus families- No public display of JC holders

2. Distribution of Job Cards (JC) Sarpanch - Issuance of false JCs- Issuance of JCs to ineligible persons- Storing of JCs with the GP

3. Issuance of receipt of demand for work application

SarpanchProgramme Officer

- No dated receipts with people who have demanded for work

5. Selection of the public work to be taken up in a particular GP

Sarpanch - No public display of finally selected projects and works by the Gram Sabha , in their order of priority - Works not selected by Gram Sabha- Opening of works not based on actual demand for work submitted by HHs

6. Development and approval of technical estimates and issuance of work order

Junior Engineer - Presence of forged estimates - Sanctions provided on the basis of improper records

7. Allotment of Work Sarpanch/Programme Officer

- Discrimination against people in allotting type of work/location of work- No public display of information of work allotted or ready to be allotted, along with names of allottees,

27

their date of application, location and type of work and other relevant information- Use of discretion by concerned functionaries while allotting work- Allotting work outside the GP without exhausting works in the GP- No payment of travel allowance

8. Implementation and Supervision of Work

Mate - Recording of non- existing names on Muster Rolls of worksites- Discretionary measurement of works- Lack of daily measurement

9. Payment of Wages Postal/Bank Branch - Non payment of wages- Late payment of wages- Payment of wages to wrong persons- Payment of wages in the name of non-existent workers- No compensation for delayed wages

9. Payment of Unemployment Allowance

Programme Officer - No dated receipt for demand for work application submitted based on which unemployment allowance can be claimed

VII. Key Findings

Based on observing the “Special Social Audit” that took place in Maharashtra and field interactions, the following are the CoE’s key findings

28

1. There has been a complete breakdown of any semblance of record maintenance in the State. The MIS records were not seen to corroborate with the physical records maintained in the GPs. The physical records were not seen to corroborate the peoples’ testimonies on field. Therefore, there is a noticeable irregularity between the accounts maintained by the Government of Maharashtra and the records submitted by the Government of Maharashtra to the Government of India through the MIS

2. There has been a deliberate and wilful misuse of the Government Order which was meant to facilitate the access of DNTs and NTs to MGNREGA. It has been used to justify and authorize displacement of workers from one Block/District to another in pursuit of MGNREGA works

3. The implementation architecture has played a role in actively denying works to workers in the villages that they reside in

4. The above has led to forced and organized displacement of labour from one GP to another under the pretext of working on MGNREGA work sites which they were denied to work under, in their own GPs. In addition, having completed such works they not been paid the minimum wage that is payable for their work and therefore is tantamount to bonded labour

5. Work has been allotted to workers beyond a radius of five kilometres from where they live without payment of the 10% travel allowance entitlement that they have a right to claim under the MGNREGA

6. The allocation of work to workers is one that is not based on the demand of the worker, but is instead based on the unlawful discretion exercised by implementing authorities at the Block and District Level in deciding to open works of their choice

7. Two copies of Job Cards were maintained for each worker and has led to forgery and duplication of accounts

8. Widespread forgery with respect to records and records are entered into the Muster Roll, job cards have been issued, accounts have been opened of non-existent persons/persons who have not worked on MGNREGA. This indicates the active connivance of the Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Sarpanch, Programme Officer at the Block Level, Postal Department Officials in abetting the irregular implementation of the Act in the State

9. There is no direct interface between workers and the Government with respect to demand registration under MGNREGA. People can get work under the MGNREGA only through a contractor

10. The nature of irregularities and findings therein recorded above are not isolated to one District alone. The CoE recognizes this as a widespread phenomenon that is being systematically nurtured by vested interests

11. There have been MGNREGA works undertaken on private lands, while claiming that the same are public lands

12. The CoE observed that Category B works (As per the Revised Schedule I of MGNREGA)

29

have taken place on individual lands of big farmers who are ineligible for getting works done on their land as clearly spelt out in Section 5, Schedule I of the MGNREGA

13. There has been a police enquiry mandated to investigate the cause of some of the above irregularities which has been pending since the past two years. The same has led to the registration of an FIR against the only non-state actor in the chain of corruption i.e. the sub-contractor which is thoroughly inadequate.

14. Though the State Government has made the claim that it is ‘unfair’ to link the deaths of workers to non-payment of MGNREGA wages, the CoE wants to place it on record that there is no doubt that the workers who committed suicides were put under immense distress which could have been alleviated by the timely payment of wage for their work done under MGNREGA. The case of suicides of workers in a clear violation of their human rights.

VIII. Recommendations

1. The State Government must ensure immediate payment of wages and compensation for delay in payment of wages as prescribed by the Law, to all those workers who have not been

30

paid for the work completed by them under MGNREGA. 2. The State Government has to immediately set up interventions that prevent contractors in any form from being present in the implementation of MGNREGA in the State

3. In the CoE’s opinion, the social audit conducted in Sillod Block was neither complete nor adequate. There is a need for an independent team (independent of the Government of Maharashtra) to conduct an enquiry in the Districts of Buldhana, Aurangabad, Jalna and Parbhani and corroborate the scale of defalcation described above, within a predetermined time period.

4. The CoE recommends the Government of Maharashtra speed up on setting up an independent social audit unit that is in compliance with the provisions of the Audit of Scheme Rules, 2011 because the dispensation of the social audit unit in its current form violates its key provisions

5. The CoE believes that the system that perpetuated the offence of non-payment of wages to workers who had migrated from other GPs to work on NREGA works, is still continuing at present and is a problem not exclusive to only one district of the State as stated in the clarification note submitted by the Government of Maharashtra to the MoRD in January 2014. The CoE received representations from numerous workers who had complaints of a similar nature, if not more serious, from other Districts of the State as well. Therefore the CoE recommends that any investigation and enquiry into the matter concerning workers from one District working in another under MGNREGA and the subsequent violation of the Statute that it leads to, must be one that is not limited to one district alone.

6. Given that the Police has been in the process of conducting an inquiry on this matter since the past two years, the CoE recommends that the police enquiry be completed as soon as possible within a fixed time period and chargesheets be filed against all implicated functionaries and persons. In addition, the CoE recommends the Ministry of Rural Development to depute technical experts on MGNREGA to the Police Enquiry if needed to assist them in the process of investigating into the matter

7. The CoE recommends the Government of Maharashtra to take immediate disciplinary and criminal action against all functionaries found responsible for irregular implementation of MGNREGA, and wilful neglect in monitoring

8. Given that the physical records and actual reality as indicated through testimonies does not corroborate the MIS records, the State Government needs to recognize the same as a punishable offence under the provisions of the Act and take the necessary criminal and disciplinary action against those officials who have violated the responsibility of record maintenance

9. Given the major discrepancies found between physical records maintained on field and records as reflected by the MIS, the CoE recommends the Government of Maharashtra to conduct an immediate verification of its MIS records through a HH survey and reconcile differences recorded immediately

10. The State Government must immediately comply with all provisions of pro-active disclosure as stated in Section 25(1), Section 25(2) and Section 25(3) of the revised Schedule

31

I of the MGNREGA

11. Given the complete absence of registration of demand for work by workers to the State Administration, the CoE recommends that a ward wise Rozgar Diwas be organized in ever Gram Panchayat of the State for the next three months to pro-actively record demand. In addition, the State Government must immediately issue advertisements in local newspapers and place posters in GPs/public places stating clearly the process of demand registration.

12. It must be ensured that the three processes of demand for work, allocation of work and generation of emuster roll are kept separate and independent of each other. For the particular case of Maharashtra, there has to be a concerted effort to push for registration of demand through independent channels such as toll free numbers, CSO Login etc

13. The State Government must immediately put into force the provision of placing a ‘Special Officer for Vulnerable Groups’ in each Block to put in place mechanisms for pr0-actively reaching out to vulnerable groups such as migrant labour, SCs, STs etc and register their demand, as mandated in Chapter 9 of the Operational Guidelines.

32

33

Gram Rojgar Sevek (GRS) not

performing role as per Act

Village Secretary (VS) not adequately aware

GRS not aware about the work

opening

Contractor gets work as per contract

by BDO, JE

Mukadam assured opening of work by

Contractor

Work assured by Mukadam

MGNRES Implementation as Mandated by Act

MGNREA Implementation as observed on field in Maharashtra

Wage seekers from any Village

registers for Job card and get it free

Gramrojgar Sevak (GRS/FA)

Village Secretary (VS)

Receiving job cardsProviding job cards Ensuring all the wage

seekers get job cards

Work demand and right to get work at village in 15 days

Opening the work at village within 15

days

Ensuring that people get work at Village in

within the 15 days

If not work then eligible for

unemployment allowance

Recommending the payment of

unemployment

Ensuring that labourers get unemployment

allowance

Work in allocated worksite where muster is filled

every day

Visiting each worksite every day, taking attendance and filling muster

rolls

Ensuring that labourers get unemployment

allowances

Work Measurement at end of the week

Technical assistant/ Junior

Engineer

APO/JE insure that measurement have

done

Worker to receive wages within 15

days

TA/JE develop the wages based

on task

Program Officer to ensure that it reaches labourers within 15

days

Labourers made to migrate from one GP/ block to another block to work on the work

opened by the Contractor for work.

GS not aware about the works

JE comes at worksite and assign

the works

Contractor and BDO visit the worksite

Labourers paid Rs.200 per pair for

weekly expense

JE or contractor gives the payment in

advance at worksite to labourers

GRS, VS don’t play any role

They give their thumb impression,

signature, and photos to get

remaining payment

BDO, Contractor, JE register fake job cards, fill fake musters, get

labourers signature and thumb impression

GRS, VS help BDO to get fake job cards, fill the fake musters

after work gets completed

Post Authority release payment to BDO, GS in absence of wage

seekers

Mukadams have not Payment has been drawn

Labourers demand for work though many of them don’t have JCs