Way back in 2008 State Rural Development Department (RDD) implemented the Centrally sponsored Indira Awas Yogna (IAY) a scheme that promised to provide financial support to rural families living Below Poverty Line (BPL) for construction or upgrading of their dwellings. The scheme very clearly and unambiguously laid down the criterion for considering a family eligible for receiving assistance under the said scheme. The criterion for target groups was of falling under BPL category, living in rural areas and belonging to SC/ST communities, freed bounded labourers, non SC /ST BPL rural households, widows, next of kin of defence personnel/ paramilitary forces killed in action residing in rural areas (irrespective of their income criteria), ex-servicemen and retired member of paramilitary forces fulfilling the other conditions.
According to CAG report tabled in the Assembly grave irregularities have been found in the implementation of the scheme during the period 2008 – 2013. In the first place, out of 45,899 beneficiaries whom the Department has sanctioned financial assistance under IAY, 30,998 families were found ineligible. Obviously, authorities have not adhered to the criterion laid down by the sponsors of the scheme, and have invented their own norms. What legality these norms have is not clear. Secondly, according to 2002 BPL census conducted by the Census Department, total shortage of dwelling in the State was of 14901 houses but RDD has sanctioned assistance to 45,899 families. How come the number of families who have either no shelter or needed to improve their existing shelter suddenly shot up by almost 31,000? Again, we find that the norms have been ignored and new norms that suited the authorities or the operatives were formed. Indirectly, this was done at the cost of the real deserving BPL families. Does it not show that the very purpose of the scheme of the Union Government was defeated?
Thirdly, RDD paid rupees 21.22 crore to 7, 589 cases by deliberately making wrong selection of beneficiaries. Additionally, it has made payment of rupees 7.04 crore to 3782 beneficiaries in excess for the period 2008-13 by making payments at enhanced rates which was not admissible under rules. Who are these beneficiaries who received payments on enhanced rates and why? Who had the authority to make payments at enhanced rates and thus make discrimination among the beneficiaries? Obviously, these families appear to have won special favour of the disbursers of the loot. Did it not create resentment among the beneficiaries? Those who took such arbitrary decisions should be booked for misuse of powers. We cannot rule out the element of corruption in such cases. The CAG report reveals that accumulation of unspent balance at the close of financial years 2008-2013 has been to the tune of 13.62 crore and 17.54 crore, which is 15 to 21 percent of the available balance. When the number of beneficiaries identified by the RDD is in the neighbourhood of 1.52 lakh, why should have almost 20 per cent of the balance remained unutilized?
There are other irregularities which can be clubbed under the head technical irregularities, but it is the intention behind these irregularities that invites the attention of an ordinary observer. A gap of one to nine months has happened during the said years in releasing instalments of funds in Jammu district of which the CAG has taken a serious view. Nine months is too long a time to release the instalments. The authorities are well aware that it defeats the very purpose of the scheme. A Block Development Officer doesn’t have powers to change the norms of a scheme without seeking permission or opinion of higher and competent authority. What was the purpose of opening more than one bank account and in different banks? Even the question of reconciling the details of funds under the scheme with bank records has been left in limbo and the CAG report has expressed its serious concern on such negligence, CAG has underlined some specific financial irregularities.
Taking an overall view of CAG on this and other Centrally sponsored schemes in the State, we feel disappointed that our State has not been able to derive the desired benefit form these schemes. Modifying the prescribed norms to suit the wishes of the implementing authority on the ground is the least that the funding authority expects. Delay in releasing funds, and arbitrarily increasing the number of beneficiaries is gross violation of rules. The matter merits thorough inquiry. It is also very important that district-wise implemental record should be made public because there is apprehensions that justice may not have been done to the deserving families.
Follow our WhatsApp channel