The right to wages is an integral part of the right to livelihood and is entitled to protection under Art.21: Orissa High Court
The legislative scheme of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act places the “Right to Livelihood” at a higher pedestal than a mere legal right by ensuring that a minimum of 100 days of employment to one person in the family is given so that the members of the family can take care of their bare minimum requirement for existence. The judgment was passed by The High Court of Orissa in the case of Purna Chandra Sahoo V. State of Odisha and Others [W.P.(C) No. 17859 of 2013] by a Single Bench consisting of Hon’ble Shri Justice B.R.Sarangi. The petitioner seeks, through this writ petition, instructions for the opposers in the context of the exercise of excavation work of the pool as per the “Mo Pokhari” regime of the government of Odisha, to pay the employers’ cards, under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS). Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that due to negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the petitioner has been deprived of his legitimate claim of Rs.50,000 as per the work order issued under the scheme of “Mo Pokhari” for engagement of job contract cardholders to excavate the pond. It is further contended that due to the inactiveness of the opposite parties, circumstances were created to frustrate the objectives behind the enactment of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, which provides guaranteed employment to rural poor to earn their livelihood, thereby, he seeks interference of this Court for giving direction to pay the dues to the job cardholders as per the work order. Learned Counsel for the respondent, contended that the project in question has not been executed at the Block level but the Gram Panchayat Level and that the said project was not completed within the time stipulated in the work order and no paraphernalia like preparation of estimate by the concerned Junior Engineer and its administrative approval by the competent authority, demand for work by the job seekers in form allotment of work to the job seekers, Thereby, in absence of maintenance of muster roll, showing engagement of job seekers, the claim made by the petitioner cannot sustain and thus he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. While making the judgment the court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, where it was held that “the fundamental rights represent the basic values cherished by the people of their country since Vedic times and they are calculated to protect the dignity of the individual and create conditions in which every human being can develop his personality to the fullest extent.”
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 178513 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Purna Chandra Sahoo State of Odisha and Others Opp. Parties Versus For Petitioner M s. Satyaranjan Mohapatra K.K. Jena and S.P. Swain Advocates For Opp. Parties : Mr. J. Katikia Addl. Government Advocate.P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI DR. B.R. SARANGI J. The petitioner by means of this writ petition seeks direction to the opposite parties to release payment to the job card holders under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme on completion of the excavation work of a pond as per the “Mo Pokhari” scheme of the Government of Odisha within a stipulated period. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that the project “Mo Pokhari” is governed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 was enacted by the parliament. To achieve the avowed objectives different schemes have been prepared by the Government to provide rural employment to the poor. “Mo Pokhari” is one of such schemes evolved by the Government with an intention to provide jobs to the rural poor. Under the above scheme the petitioner was issued with an work order vide Annexure 1 on 04.04.2010 by the opposite party no.5 the Sarapanch Kahakalapada Gram Panchayat to start the work within a period of three days of its issuance i.e. from 04.04.2010 and to be completed by 14.06.2010. When the claim of payment was made the opposite party no.3 Project Director DRDA Jajpur conducted an enquiry by the Additional Project Director Additional Project Directorand the NRGS Coordinator. During the course of enquiry it was found that the work order for excavation of the pond of the petitioner under the scheme “Mo Pokhari” was issued by opposite party no.5 on 04.04.2010. The technical and financial sanction were approved in online mode on 15.05.2010 and the VLW had requested the BDO to issue 5 nos. of muster roll on 15.05.2010 without any request for work by the job seekers in the prescribed form C1. It was also revealed that an amount of Rs.27 000 was deducted from the cash book vide cheque no. 370391 dated 25.07.2010 though the work was not measured by the concerned Junior Engineer and check measured by the Asst. Engineer of the Block. Therefore the total amount was misappropriated by the concerned VLW Sarapanch and the GRS of Mahakalpada Gram Panchayat. In pursuance of such enquiry report the erring officials were issued notice to deposit the amount vide Block Office letter no.1180 dated 04.04.2013 followed by the reminder dated 08.05.2013. If due procedure prescribed under MGNREGA was not followed and no muster roll was maintained by the authorities for the purpose of approval vis à vis sanction the denial of release of amount is absolutely misconceived one. As it appears there was mismanagement on the part of the authority and therefore the petitioner has been deprived of getting his legitimate dues as has been claimed for execution of the work under the scheme “Mo Pokhari”. Admittedly an amount of Rs.27 000 was released but the same has not reached to the real job seekers rather it has been misappropriate by VLW GRS and Sarapanch. As such an amount of Rs.13 500 has been received from the VLW and steps have been taken for recovery of the balance amount from the concerned Sarapanch. There is no dispute that the work order was issued in favour of the petitioner pursuant to Annexure 1 and in response thereto the petitioner engaged labourers to get the work executed within the time stipulated and as a matter of fact technical and financial sanctions had been approved so far as the project is concerned on online basis on 15.05.2010. In regard to maintenance of procedure it is the VLW or the Sarapanch who has to do the same but inaction or negligence on the part of the said authority cannot disentitle the petitioner to get the benefit as claimed for the work executed pursuant to work order issued in Annexure 1. This is a serious matter where the very purpose of the MGNREGA has been frustrated due to laxity of the authority concerned as a result of which the poor job seekers have been deprived of their legitimate claim for the work done by them. The payments are made to the job seekers to earn their livelihood in rural areas. If the same is not paid within the time stipulated the objective of the MGNREGA will be frustrated. Therefore by taking some plea or other the benefit accrued has not been extended to the petitioner for the laches on the part of the authorities who are in channel of disbursement of wages as a result thereof the poor rural job seekers have been put to difficulties and untold miseries. As the avowed objective of the rural job seekers to get an employment for their livelihood has been frustrated it violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides right to live life with dignity. If the rural job seekers have rendered their job they should be paid in time otherwise they will be deprived of their right to livelihood. The preamble “assures dignity of the individual”. The „right to life‟ including the right to „life with human dignity‟ would mean the existence of such a right up to the end of a natural life. In Samatha v. State of A.P. AIR 1997 SC 3297 the apex Court held that all those rights and aspect of life which would go to make a man‟s life complete and worth living would form part of right to life. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 SC 597 :1 SCC 248 the apex Court observed that the fundamental rights represents the basic values cherished by the people of their country since Vedic times and they are calculated to protect the dignity of the individual and create conditions in which every human being can develop his personality to the fullest extent. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn. AIR 1986 SC 180: 3 SCC 545 the apex Court observed “Right to Livelihood” has been held to be an integral part of Right to Life under Article. 21. In Narendra Kumar v. State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 519 :4 SCC 460 the apex Court held that right to livelihood is an integral facet of the right to life. The apex Court in Dalmia CementLtd. v. UOI 1996) 10 SCC 104 even went to the extent observing that the right of agriculturists to cultivation has been held to be a part of their fundamental right to livelihood. In O. Konavalov v. Commander Coast Guard Region 2006) 4 SCC 620 the apex Court already held that the right of seamen to wages is an integral part of the right to livelihood and is entitled to protection under Art.21. In Centre of Environment and Food Security V. UOI 5 SCC 676 the apex Court held that the legislative scheme of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act places the “Right to Livelihood” at a higher pedestal than a mere legal right by ensuring that a minimum of 100 days of employment to one person in the family is given so that the members of the family are able to take care of their bare minimum requirement for existence. In view of the settled position of law as discussed above non release of payment to job card holders rural job seekers affects their livelihood and right to live with dignity therefore violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the present case admittedly an enquiry was conducted by the vigilance authority and on the basis of such enquiry report some of the officials have been put into task because of mismanagement of the funds and that itself cannot deprive the petitioner of getting his legitimate claim. For the foregoing legal and factual discussions this Court is of the considered view that the payment for the work which was executed pursuant to the work order dated 04.04.2010 in Annexure 1 should be paid to the petitioner by following due procedure in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. Ordered accordingly. In the result the writ petition is allowed. No order to DR.B.R.SARANGI Orissa High Court Cuttack The 19th January 2021 Ajaya GDS 