A Parliamentary panel has expressed dissatisfaction over households not getting 100 days of employment in the past two years under MGNREGA and suggested a scientific analysis of durable assets created under the scheme.
In its 47th report, the Standing Committee on Rural Development said the Department of Rural Development (DoRD) should take steps in coordination with states and Union Territories to provide 100 days of employment according to the provisions of the Act.
The committee said that it was dissatisfied with the "non achievement of primary objective of MGNREGA of providing 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in previous years i.e. 2011-12 and 2012-13" as compared to number of households who demanded wage employment under the scheme.
The panel also said that there were variations between the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) and DoRD for coverage of rural households under MGNREGA and recommended that a there should be single reliable data.
It said that in certain states the number of job cards are greater than the number of rural households indicated and as such both data may vary. After DoRD informed it that states and UTs had been asked to verify genuineness of job cards, it welcomed the step.
The panel also held that it had earlier recommended a nationwide assessment by DoRD regarding creation of durable assets. It called for having a nationwide assessment of durability and availability of assets created under MNREGA.
The committee also said that in an earlier report it had recommended lodging criminal cases after it noticed various illegalities of a serious nature while reviewing the performance of the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) in Andaman and Nicobar.
The DoRD said the matter had been brought to the notice of the Home ministry, the parliamentary committee said that it be kept aware of the developments. The panel also added that the DoRD should make attempts in coordination with states and UTs to speedily finalise a BPL list.
In its 51st report, the panel on Rural Development reiterated a recommendation made in one of its earlier reports that MPs of the standing committees should be given preference when vigilance and monitoring committees are constituted.
The panel said the vigilance and monitoring committees are constituted to monitor the implementation of programmes of the ministry of rural development. It said the senior-most MP rather than the minister of rural development should chair the meetings of these committees.