1. Directions for implementation of Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojana (SGRY) and related employment generation schemes. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2002 Supreme(SC) 2208
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. Kirpal, CJI., Arijit Pasayat, H.K. Sema, JJ.
People's Union For Civil Liberties - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 196 of 2001
Decided On : 08-05-2002
Important Points
The Court mandated strict guidelines for the implementation of employment schemes, emphasizing the priority of marginalized groups, the ban on contractors, the role of local bodies in social audits, and the necessity of clear, uniform criteria for identifying below-poverty-line families.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Social Welfare and Human Rights
Headnote
(A) Social Welfare Schemes - Employment generation - Creation of community assets - Priority to agricultural wage earners, unskilled workers, marginal farmers, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and women - Weekly wage payments - Prohibition of contractors - Financial accountability and timely release of funds - Social audits by local governance bodies - Right to information regarding beneficiaries - Identification of below-poverty-line families - Public distribution system functioning. (Para 1)
(B) Administrative Accountability - Role of district administration in monitoring compliance of court orders - Appointment of court commissioners for grievance redressal. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought directions for the effective implementation of employment and food security schemes, highlighting discrepancies in the identification of below-poverty-line families, misuse of funds, and the failure of the administration to ensure the proper functioning of ration shops and employment generation programs.
Findings of Court:
The court directed that employment proposals be framed by local bodies for community assets; priority be given to marginalized sections and women; weekly wage payments be ensured; and contractors be prohibited. It mandated timely fund releases contingent upon utilization certificates and empowered local bodies to conduct social audits and monitor beneficiary selection. Furthermore, clear guidelines for identifying below-poverty-line families were ordered.
Issues: Whether the implementation of employment generation schemes and the identification of below-poverty-line families were being carried out transparently and efficiently, and whether there was a need for enhanced administrative accountability and community monitoring.
Ratio Decidendi: Effective implementation of social welfare schemes requires decentralization of planning, transparent beneficiary identification through clear guidelines, community-led social audits to prevent misuse of funds, and a structured administrative hierarchy for monitoring and grievance redressal.
Result: Directions issued to the respondents; matter scheduled for further review after 12 weeks.
(B) Administrative Accountability - Role of district administration in monitoring compliance of court orders - Appointment of court commissioners for grievance redressal. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought directions for the effective implementation of employment and food security schemes, highlighting discrepancies in the identification of below-poverty-line families, misuse of funds, and the failure of the administration to ensure the proper functioning of ration shops and employment generation programs.
Findings of Court:
The court directed that employment proposals be framed by local bodies for community assets; priority be given to marginalized sections and women; weekly wage payments be ensured; and contractors be prohibited. It mandated timely fund releases contingent upon utilization certificates and empowered local bodies to conduct social audits and monitor beneficiary selection. Furthermore, clear guidelines for identifying below-poverty-line families were ordered.
Issues: Whether the implementation of employment generation schemes and the identification of below-poverty-line families were being carried out transparently and efficiently, and whether there was a need for enhanced administrative accountability and community monitoring.
Ratio Decidendi: Effective implementation of social welfare schemes requires decentralization of planning, transparent beneficiary identification through clear guidelines, community-led social audits to prevent misuse of funds, and a structured administrative hierarchy for monitoring and grievance redressal.
Result: Directions issued to the respondents; matter scheduled for further review after 12 weeks.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute regarding identification of BPL families and implementation of employment schemes. (Para 1 )
3. Court noted lack of clear criteria for BPL family identification and procedural gaps in scheme implementation. (Para 1 )
4. Gram Sabhas have authority to conduct social audit; funds must be used only for specified schemes. (Para 1 )
5. Court issued directions for employment generation, wage payment, social audit, and grievance redressal mechanisms. (Para 1 )
6. What is the role of Gram Sabhas in implementing employment schemes?
Gram Sabhas are entitled to conduct social audits, monitor implementation, access relevant information, and raise grievances regarding scheme execution. (Para 1 )
7. What are the requirements for wage payment under SGRY?
Wage payment must be made on a weekly basis, and use of contractors in the program is prohibited. (Para 1 )
8. How are funds to be released and utilized under SGRY?
Funds are released on schedule if states fulfill conditions and furnish utilization certificates. Funds must be used only for the SGRY program. (Para 1 )
9. What is the grievance redressal mechanism for non-compliance of court orders?
Complaints to CEO/Collector are recorded, acknowledged, and compliance secured. Commissioners oversee unresolved grievances after exhaustion of local remedies. (Para 1 )
10. How should BPL families be identified?
Central and state governments must frame clear and uniform guidelines for proper identification of BPL families. (Para 1 )
JUDGMENT :
1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we issue the following directions.
(a) The Gram Panchayats shall frame employment generation proposals in accordance with the Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojana (SCRY) guidelines for creation of useful community assets that have the potential for generating sustained and gainful employment such as water and soil conservation, afforestation and agro-horticulture, salvipasture, minor irrigation and link roads. These proposals shall be approved and sanctioned by the Gram Panchayats and the work started expeditiously.
(b) The respondents shall focus the SGRY programme towards agricultural wage earners, non-agricultural unskilled wage earners, marginal farmers and, in particular, SC and ST persons whose wage income constitutes a reasonable proportion of their household income and to give priority to them in employment, and within this sector shall give priority to women.
(c) The respondents shall make the wage payment on a weekly basis.
(d) The respondents shall prohibit the use of contractors in the SGRY programme.
(e) The Central Government shall make financial releases under the different employment generation schemes to each State on schedule, provided that the State Governments fulfil the conditions as prescribed by the SGRY. The State Governments are directed to fulfil these conditions and implement the SGRY expeditiously. The State Government will furnish utilisation certificate and it is only on the furnishing of the same that further amounts shall be released. The funds provided shall only be utilised in respect of SGRY programme.
(f) The Gram Sabhas are entitled to conduct a social audit into all Food/ Employment schemes and to report all instances of misuse of funds to the respective implementing authorities, who shall on receipt of such complaints, investigate and take appropriate action in accordance with law.
(g) On a complaint being made to the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat (CEO)/Collector regarding non-compliance of the orders of this Court the concerned CEO/Collector shall record the salient features of the complaint in a register maintained for this purpose, acknowledge receipt of the complaint and forthwith secure compliance with this Court's order.
(h) The CEO/Collector of all the Districts in the States and territories shall scrutinise the action taken by all the implementing agencies within their jurisdiction to ensure compliance with this Court's orders and report to the Chief Secretary.
(i) The responsibility for implementation of the order of this Court shall be that of the CEO/Collector. The Chief Secretary will ensure compliance with the order of this Court.
(j) Dr. N.C. Saxena, former Planning Secretary, Government of India, and Mr. S.R. Shankaran, former Secretary, Rural Development, Government of India, shall function as Commissioners of this Court for the purpose of looking into any grievance that may persist after the above-mentioned grievance resolution procedure has been exhausted.
(k) On the Commissioner's recommending a course of action to ensure compliance with this Court's order, the State Government/UT administrations, shall forthwith act upon such recommendation and report compliance.
(1) The commissioners shall be at liberty to take the assistance of individuals and reliable organizations in the State and Union Territories. All officials are directed to fully cooperate with such persons/organizations, to bring about effective monitoring and implementation of the orders of this Court.
(m) The Gram Sabhas are empowered to monitor the implementation of the various schemes and have access to relevant information relating to, inter alia, selection of beneficiaries and the disbursement of benefits. The Gram Sabhas can raise their grievance(s) in the manner set out above and the redressal of the grievance(s) . shall be done accordingly.
(n) It has been stated by the Petitioner that the identification of BPL families is not being done properl
