Girija Saseendran vs Block Programme Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 4808 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                        PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
 FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 9TH VAISAKHA, 1944
                 WP(C) NO. 4378 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

    1    GIRIJA SASEENDRAN
         AGED 60 YEARS
         KRISHNAVILASAM, NEDUMBASSERY
         ERNAKULAM - 683 589.

    2    ALIYAMMA ALIAS
         AGED 59 YEARS
         KAIBRAMBADAN HOUSE, NEDUMBASSERY
         ERNAKULAM - 683 589.


         BY ADV K.SANDESH RAJA

RESPONDENT/S:

    1    BLOCK PROGRAMME OFFICER
         PARAKKADAVU BLOCK PANCHAYATH, KURUMASSERY,
         ERNAKULAM- 683579
    2    NEDUMBASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
         KARIYAD, MEKKAD PO, NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM -
         683 589.

    3    STEERING AND STANDING COMMITTEE
         NEDUMBASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
         REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
         KARIYAD, MEKKAD PO, NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM -
         683 589.

    4    EMPLOYMENT REGISTRATION OFFICER
         MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT
         GUARANTEE SCHEME
         NEDUMBASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
         KARIYAD, MEKKAD PO, NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM -
         683 589.

    5    THE PRESIDENT NEDUMBASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
         NEDUMBASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
         KARIYAD, MEKKAD PO, NEDUMBASSERY,
 W.P.(C) No.4378 of 2022

                                   -2-


            ERNAKULAM - 683 589

            BY ADV SHRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN,SC,NEDUMBASSERI PA

OTHER PRESENT:

            SR.GP. PREMCHAND R. NAIR FOR R1,4


THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

17.03.2022,      THE      COURT   ON     29.04.2022   DELIVERED   THE

FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.4378 of 2022

                                     -3-



                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29th day of April , 2022

The petitioners are permanent residents of

Ward No.15 of Nedumbassery Grama Panchayat. They

were employed for doing unskilled manual work in

Ward No.14 of the Panchayat, under the Scheme

formulated for giving effect to the Mahatma

Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act

(MGNREG Act), 2005. According to the petitioners,

they had been allotted for doing work in Ward

No.14 from 2008 onwards and had been doing their

work without any cause for complaint. While so,

the Standing Committee of the Panchayat decided

to engage the petitioners for work in Ward No.15

(Ext.P3). Aggrieved by the decision, the

petitioners preferred representation before the

first respondent, resulting in Ext.P4

communication requiring the Secretary of the W.P.(C) No.4378 of 2022

Panchayat to provide employment to the

petitioners within 5 Kms of their residence. The

sudden reallocation of the petitioners and two

other workers from Ward No.14 gave rise to

widespread agitation, compelling the Panchayat to

discuss the issue. Ultimately, the Panchayat

decided to relocate the petitioners to Ward No.15

and to retain the other two employees in Ward

No.14 itself (Ext.P7). The writ petition is filed

seeking to quash Exts.P3 and P7 decisions and to

implement the direction in Ext.P4 communication.

2. Adv.Sandesh Raja, learned Counsel for the

petitioners, contended that relocation of the

petitioners from Ward No.14 to Ward No.15 is not

only arbitrary, but will also result in loss of

number of working days for them. The decision is

also stated to be discriminatory, since the

petitioners are singled out for re-allotment to

Ward No.15, while the other workers, against whom

the same action was proposed, are retained at W.P.(C) No.4378 of 2022

Ward No.14 itself. It is submitted that, going by

the contentions in the counter affidavit, the re-

allotment is punitive and in such event, the

decision should be preceded by an enquiry and the

petitioners provided with an opportunity of

hearing.

3. Adv.George Sebastian, learned Counsel

appearing for the second respondent Panchayat,

submitted that the District Collector, who is the

District Programme Coordinator of MGNRE Schemes,

had considered the petitioners' complaint and

issued Ext.R2(a), directing the Panchayat to

provide employment to the petitioners within 5

Kms of their residence. Being residents of Ward

No.15, the petitioners cannot have any complaint

in being allocated to their own ward. Reference

is made to Ext.R2(c) application dated 17.06.2021

to point out that the petitioners themselves had

sought employment in Ward No.15. Even though

petitioners were allotted work in Ward No.15, W.P.(C) No.4378 of 2022

they never reported for work and instead,

resorted to agitation and strike outside the

Panchayath office. The decision to relocate the

petitioners to Ward No.15 was taken in the wake

of a series of complaints received from their co-

workers, alleging misbehaviour and abusive

conduct by the petitioners. It is contended that

interference by this Court will defeat the very

objective of the MGNREG Act, viz; to ensure 100

days of guaranteed wage employment to every

household, whose adult member has volunteered to

do unskilled manual work.

4. I find substantial merit in the final

contention urged by the learned Standing Counsel

for the Panchayat that, the complaint raised by

the petitioners is not one to be decided in a

writ petition under Article 226. The MGNREG Act,

2005 is enacted with the objective of enhancing

the livelihood and security of the households in W.P.(C) No.4378 of 2022

rural areas of the country, by providing at

least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in

every financial year, to every household whose

adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual

work. Under the Act, the State Government is

bound to provide employment to an adult member

from each family. The Panchayats at district,

intermediate and village levels are the

principal authorities for planning and

implementation of the Schemes made under the

Act. The responsibility of the Gram Panchayats,

enumerated at Section 16 of the Act, include

allocation of employment opportunities among the

applicants and requiring them to report for

work. Schedule II of the Act deals with

conditions for guaranteed rural employment under

a Scheme and minimum entitlement of labourers.

Clause 18 of Schedule II stipulates that, as far

as possible, the employment shall be provided

within a radius of 5 Kms of the village where W.P.(C) No.4378 of 2022

the applicant is residing. It is in that context

that the representations were considered by

the Block Programme Officer and the District

Programme Officer and the Panchayat directed to

grant employment to the petitioners within the 5

kilometers radius. The petitioners have no case

that the allotment under Exts.P3 and P7 is

beyond 5 kilometers of their residence. As such,

I find no reason to interfere with the impugned

orders.

5. The mere fact that the complaints

received from co-workers were taken into

consideration by the Panchayat before allocating

the petitioners to Ward No.15, is no reason for

this Court to hold the re-allotment to be

punitive. The fact that two among the workers who

were also proposed to be allotted to ward No.15

are retained in Ward No.14 is also not reason

enough to hold the allocation to be

discriminatory, particularly when no serious W.P.(C) No.4378 of 2022

complaint is seen raised against the workers

retained in Ward No.14. In any event, the

objective of the Act being to ensure employment

to adult member of every household and to

implement various developmental Schemes,

interference by this Court, based on trivial

issues, will defeat the very objective of the Act

and scuttle the progress of the Schemes.

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ

petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/ W.P.(C) No.4378 of 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4378/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LABOUR CARD NO.KL08010003014 28 ISSUED TO THE FAMILY OF THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LABOUR CARD NO.KL00010003015 67 ISSUED TO THE FAMILY OF THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21/6/2021 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C/1915/2021 DATED 20/7/2021 ISSUED BY THE BLOCK PROGRAMME OFFICER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C/1915/2021 DATED 29/7/2021 ISSUED BY THE BLOCK PROGRAMME OFFICER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 5/11/2021 SIGNED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21/12/2021 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION DATED 25/09/2021 GIVEN BY THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR/DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit R2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 08/10/2021 TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT GRAMA PANCHAYAT. Exhibit R2(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17/06/2021 GIVEN BY THE WORKERS OF WARD NO.14.

Exhibit R2(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE HEARING WHICH HAD TAKEN PLACE ON 05/10/2021.

Exhibit R2(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/11/2021 ISSUED BY THEE JOINT W.P.(C) No.4378 of 2022

PROGRAMME COORDINATOR TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit R2(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/08/2017 ISSUED FROM THE MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ALONG WITH INSTRUCTION ON OMBUDSMAN.