THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OMBUDSMAN UNDER THE NREGA: AN ANALYSIS

_______________________________________________________________________
_

On 29th July, 2009, the Rural Development Department’s announced a

100 day agenda which included the setting up an ombudsman as a
grievance redressal mechanism at the district level itself so that all
complaints relating to the execution of the National Rural Employment
Guarantee scheme, “are taken up in right earnest and disposed of to
the satisfaction of the rural masses.”1

- EXISTING MECHANISMS: Thus far, the Block Development Officer (BDO)

had functioned as the authority that received all the complaints for any
grievance at the panchayat level, the District Collector for complaints
against block officials and the State Programme Coordinator for
complaints against the district collector. In January 2009, the ministry
appointed 2918 coordinators for the purposes of grievance redressal
under the NREGA, across all the 615 districts in the country. 2

However an independent final authority in the form of an ombudsman

was required to coordinate and monitor the efforts of these other
grievance redressal mechanisms.3

STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OMBUDSMAN ORDER:

1
K. Balchand , Ombudsman to oversee NREGA complaints available
at , http://www.thehindu.
ncom/2009/06/30/stories/2009063057601800.htm
2
Sandip Das , NREGA creates jobs to create more jobs,
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/nregam -creates-jobs-to-create-
more-jobs/411153/
3
Pradeep Baisakh, Where is NREGS heading? Available at
http://infochangeindia.org/200910097974/
Governance/Features/Where-is-NREGS-heading.html
On 7th September, 2009, the order to establish the office of the
ombudsman under the Act was issued. As of 28th October, almost two
months after the order was issued, the Ministry released the list of
selection committees for ombudsmen for each state.4 Recent office
memorandums (November 15, 2009) of the Rural Development
Ministry depict a sorry state of affairs with respect to the commitment
of states to take concrete measures towards grievance redressal5 and
it is also evident that have been lax in setting up other redressal
mechanisms such as helplines.6 As of 22nd December, it has been
reported that not a single state has established the ombudsman office
at the district level. 7

At the least, as of 11th November, the Kerala Government issued a

statement expressing its intention to appoint an ombudsman under the
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act.8 On 8th December, the
Rural Development Ministry, in the Rajya Sabha, issued a statement
that 242 complaints have been received by “National Level Monitors”,
soon after the issuance of the July Order, out of which 13 had been
disposed off involving Rs 7.07 crore and FIRs had been lodged in 22
cases. 9

AN ANALYSIS OF PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER:

• Grounds of complaint – The grounds listed in Chapter IV,
Paragraph 9 are exhaustive and provide wide jurisdiction to the

4
Office Memorandum, Department of Rural Development, Ministry of
Rural Development, No. J 11011/21/2008.
5
Dr Rita Sharma, Office Memorandum, D.O. No. J-11060/9/2006-
NREGA..
6
Ibid.
7
Amit Agnihotri, No response from states on ombudsman, available at
http://epaper.asianage.com /ASIAN/AAGE/ 2009/12/22/index.shtml
8
Kerala Appoints Ombudsman under the NREG Scheme, available at
http://www.asianetindia.com /news/kerala-appoint-ombudsman-nrega-
scheme_99590.html
9
Ibid.
 Ombudsman, thus allowing for effective redressal of a wide
range of issues and problematic areas in the implementation of
the Scheme.
• Speedy Redressal – The Order introduces a 7 day limit for
disposal of cases and thus curbing delays in grievance redressal
which is currently the biggest problem faced by complainants.
• Confidentiality Provision: As stated in Paragraph 8.2.2. of
the Order,10 the duty of the ombudsman to maintain transparency,
has several riders attached to it, and he/she is not under an
obligation to disclose information or documents in circumstances
which are within his discretion. This is contravention with the spirit of
the Right to Information Act, 2005. A District Grievance Redressal
Ombudsman under the Act would fall squarely within the definition of
a public authority 11
and therefore it would necessitate complete

10
¶ 8.2.2 “To maintain confidentiality of any information or document
coming into his knowledge or possession in the course of discharging
his duties and not disclose such information or document to any
person except with the consent of the person furnishing such
information or document; provided that nothing in this clause shall
prevent the Ombudsman from disclosing information or documents
furnished by a party in a complaint to the other party or parties, to the
extent considered by him to be reasonably required to comply with the
principles of natural justice and fair play in the proceedings.
11
Right to Information Act, 2005,
1 (h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of
self- government established or constituted—
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate
Government, (emphasis supplied) and includes any—

(i) body owned, controlled or substantially

financed;
(ii) non-Government organization substantially
financed, directly or indirectly by funds
provided by the appropriate Government;
disclosure in pursuance of Section 4 of the RTI Act. Further as stated
in the operational guidelines of the NREGA,
“No request (for information) should be refused under any
circumstances. All NREGA-related information is in the
public domain”12
Thus, in light of the importance of transparency in
promoting and facilitating the effective implementation of
the Act, an amendment is warranted.
• Appeal Clause: Paragraph 13.5 states that there shall be
no appeal against the ‘award’ passed by the Ombudsman and
that it shall be “final and binding” on the parties. This lack of
appeal is an anomaly from other legislations that have
introduced the concept of an ombudsman in public service
delivery.13.This is also contradiction with the Expert Committee
on grievance redressal, the members of were of the opinion that
the complainants should be able to know about improvements
made as a result of their complaints and about recourse to
“further appeal /action if they are not satisfied with the manner
in which their complaint is disposed”.14The NREGA was
introduced to provide “livelihood security” which has been
recognized as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court. 15 The
lack of appeal, could possibly result in ineffective grievance
redressal and thus impede access to these basic rights.

12
Chapter 10, NREGA Operational Guidelines.
13
See generally Karnataka Lok Ayukta Act, Section 24(2) “ The
provisions of this Act shall be in addition to the provisions of any other
enactment or any rule or law under which any remedy by way of
appeal, revision, review or in any other manner is available to a person
making a complaint under this Act in respect of any action and nothing
in this Act shall limit or affect the right of such person to avail of such
remedy.
14
Department of Rural Development, Ministry of Rural Development,
Report of Expert Group on Establishment of Grievance Redressal
Mechanism under NREG Act.
15
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 188
• Penalty Provision: Paragraph 13.2.5. restricts the power
of an Ombudsman by disallowing the imposition of penalties
under the NREGA.16 The Expert Committee opined that the power
to impose a penalty should be introduced in the order to
effectively empower the office and ensure that success of the
office in achieving its purpose.17 Further the Model Order for a
Grievance Redressal Ombudsman, while disallowing the
imposition of a penalty by the Ombudsman, nonetheless
introduced a penalty of Rs.50 per day of delay in complying with
the award.18 This has also been done away with in the final
Order. This power to impose a penalty has been provided for in
the Act.19 The Ombudsmen being an authority recognized as an
institutionalised mechanism of grievance redressal, the lack of
power to impose penalties in conjunction with the finality of the
award could act to the detriment of the purpose of the office.

16
Order under Section 27(1) of the National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act for Establishment of the Office of Ombudsman for
Redressal of Grievance in a Time-bound Manner, No. J-11011/21/2008-
NREGA
17
See generally, Statements of Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey in Department of
Rural Development, Ministry of Rural Development, Report of Expert
Group on Establishment of Grievance Redressal Mechanism under
NREG Act.
18
Department of Rural Development, Ministry of Rural Development,
Report of Expert Group on Establishment of Grievance Redressal
Mechanism under NREG Act.
19
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005.
§ 25. Penalty for non-compliance.-Whoever contravenes the provisions
of this Act shall on conviction be liable to a fine which may extend to
one thousand rupees.