STANDING COMMITTEE ON

RURAL DEVELOPMENT
15 (2010-2011)

FIFTEENTH LOK SABHA

MINISTRY OF PANCHAYATI RAJ

[Action Taken by the Government on the recommendations contained

in the Sixth Report (Fifteenth Lok Sabha) on Demands for Grants
(2010-11) of the Ministry of Panchayati Raj]

FIFTEENTH REPORT

lR;eso t;rs

LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT

NEW DELHI
March, 2011/Phalguna, 1932 (Saka)
 FIFTEENTH REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
(2010-2011)

(FIFTEENTH LOK SABHA)

MINISTRY OF PANCHAYATI RAJ

[Action Taken by the Government on the recommendations contained

in the Sixth Report (Fifteenth Lok Sabha) on Demands for Grants
(2010-11) of the Ministry of Panchayati Raj]

Presented to Lok Sabha on 03.03.2011

Laid in Rajya Sabha on 03.03.2011

lR;eso t;rs

LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT

NEW DELHI

March, 2011/Phalguna, 1932 (Saka)

CRD No. 15

Price : Rs. 168.00

© 2011 BY LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT

Published under Rule 382 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business
in Lok Sabha (Fourteenth Edition) and printed by M/s. The Indian Press,
Delhi-110 033.
 CONTENTS
PAGE
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE (2010-2011)....................................... (iii)

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................... (v)

CHAPTER I Report............................................................................... 1

CHAPTER II Recommendations which have been accepted by the

Government ..................................................................... 21

CHAPTER III Recommendations which the Committee do not desire

to pursue in view of the Government’s replies.............. 46

CHAPTER IV Recommendations in respect of which replies of

the Government have not been accepted by the
Committee......................................................................... 50

CHAPTER V Recommendations in respect of which final replies of

the Government are still awaited ................................. 52

ANNEXURES

I. Guidelines for Delineation of role and responsibilities of

Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) in CSSs/ACASs........ 57

II. Guidelines for the devolution of Functions, Funds and

Functionaries (3Fs) to the Panchayati Raj Institutions
(PRIs) through Activity Mapping.................................. 70

III. Guidelines for Panchayat Finances................................ 106

IV. Guidelines on Manpower for the Panchayati Raj

Institutions (PRIs)........................................................... 113

V. Details of District Panchayats in different States/UTs... 123

VI. Guidelines on Construction of Gram Panchayat (GP)

Buildings and Bharat Nirman Rajiv Gandhi Sewa
Kendras (BNRGSK)......................................................... 128
 PAGE
VII. Furnishing of Action Taken Replies on the recommen-
dations contained in the Sixth Report of the Standing
Committee on Rural Development on Demands for
Grants (2010-11) of Ministry of Panchayati Raj.......... 132

VIII. OM of MoPR regarding Constitution of National

Advisory-cum-Review Committee on BRGF................... 134

IX. Recommendations of NARC on BRGF and response

of MoPR.......................................................................... 137

X. OM of Planning Commission regarding Constitution of

Consultancy Evaluation-cum-Monitoring Committee
(CEMC) for monitoring the Evaluation Study of the
Scheme of Backward Districts Initiative (BDI) and
Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF)........................ 147

XI. Criteria for Inter se Distribution of BRGF Fund across

States................................................................................. 149

XII. Circular of MoPR about role of DPC/HPC in approval

of BRGF Annual Plan for 2010-11 for BRGF........... 153

XIII. Rashtriya Gram Swaraj Yojana grants released during

2009-10............................................................................ 155

APPENDICES

I. Extracts of Minutes of the sitting of the Committee held

on 6 January, 2011......................................................... 156

II. Extracts of Minutes of the sitting of the Committee held

on 7 February, 2011....................................................... 158

III. Analysis of the Action Taken by the Government on

the recommendations contained in the Sixth Report
of the Committee (15th Lok Sabha)............................ 160
 COMPOSITION OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
(2010-2011)

Shrimati Sumitra Mahajan—Chairperson

MEMBERS

Lok Sabha

2. Shri Pulin Bihari Baske

3. Shri Kunvarjibhai Mohanbhai Bavalia
4. Shri Sanjay Dhotre
5. Shri Sandeep Dikshit
6. Shri Manikrao Hodlya Gavit
7. Shri H.D. Kumaraswamy
8. Shri Raghuvir Singh Meena
9. Shri Sidhant Mohapatra
10. Shri Gobinda Chandra Naskar
11. Shri Rakesh Pandey
12. Shri P.L. Punia
13. Shri A. Venkatarami Reddy
14. Shri Jagdish Sharma
15. Shri Navjot Singh Sidhu
16. Shri Jagdanand Singh
17. Dr. Sanjay Singh
18. Shri Makansingh Solanki
19. Shri Kodikkunnil Suresh
20. Shrimati Usha Verma
21. Shri Ramesh Vishwanath Katti

(iii)
 Rajya Sabha

22. Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar

23. Shri Ganga Charan
24. Sardar Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa
25. Dr. Ram Prakash
26. Shri P.R. Rajan
27. Shri Arjun Singh
28. Shrimati Maya Singh
29. Shri Mohan Singh
30. Miss Anusuiya Uikey
31. Dr. (Smt.) Kapila Vatsyayan

SECRETARIAT
1. Shri Brahm Dutt — Joint Secretary
2. Shri Shiv Singh — Director
3. Shri A.K. Shah — Additional Director
4. Shri Sumesh Kumar — Executive Officer

(iv)
 INTRODUCTION

I, the Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Rural Development

(2010-11) having been authorised by the Committee to submit the Report on
their behalf, present the Fifteenth Report on the action taken by the
Government on the recommendations contained in the Sixth Report of the
Standing Committee on Rural Development on Demands for Grants
(2010-11) of the Ministry of Panchayati Raj.

2. The Sixth Report was presented to Lok Sabha on 16 April, 2010.

The replies of the Government to all the recommendations contained in the
Report were received on 22 September, 2010.

3. The replies of the Government were examined and the Draft Report
was considered and adopted by the Committee at their sitting held on
7 February, 2011.

4. An analysis of the action taken by the Government on the

recommendations contained in the Sixth Report of the Committee
is given in Appendix-III.

NEW DELHI; SUMITRA MAHAJAN,

25 February, 2011 Chairperson,
6 Phalguna, 1932 (Saka) Standing Committee on Rural Development.

(v)
 CHAPTER I

REPORT

This Report of the Committee on Rural Development (2010-11)

deals with the action taken by the Government on the recommendations
contained in their Sixth Report on Demands for Grants (2010-11) of
the Ministry of Panchayati Raj which was presented to Lok Sabha on
16 April, 2010.

2. Action taken replies have been received from the Government in

respect of all the 31 recommendations which have been categorised as
follows:—

Chapter II Recommendations which have been accepted by

the Government:

Para Nos.: 2.5, 3.9, 3.16, 3.17, 4.10, 4.25, 4.29,

4.37, 4.42, 4.62, 4.63, 4.78, 4.85, 5.17, 5.20, 5.35,
5.48, 5.49, 5.50 and 5.55.

Chapter III Recommendations which the Committee do not

desire to pursue in view of Government’s replies:

Para Nos.: 4.79, 5.16, 5.18 and 5.19.

Chapter IV Recommendations in respect of which replies of

the Government have not been accepted by the
Committee:

Para No.: 4.50

Chapter V Recommendations in respect of which final replies

of the Government are still awaited:

Para Nos. : 4.5, 4.36, 4.54, 4.80, 5.26 and 5.27.

3. The Committee further desire that final reply in respect of

Para Nos. 4.5, 4.36, 4.54, 4.80, 5.26 and 5.27 for which only interim
replies have been given by the Government and in respect of
recommendations/observations contained in Chapter-I of this Report
should be furnished to them within three months of presentation of the
Report to Parliament.

4. The Committee will now deal with action taken by the

Government on some of these recommendations in the succeeding
paragraphs.

A. Unspent Balance

Recommendation (Serial No. 2, Para No. 3.9)

5. The Committee had recommended as under:—

“The Committee are disturbed to note that huge unspent balances

of Rs. 5062.77 crore as on 28.02.2010 were left with the
implementing agencies in six different schemes being implemented
by the Ministry. The unspent balance for six other schemes is not
available with the Ministry which shows lack of sufficient
monitoring of the releases made by them. Not only the total unspent
balance in six different schemes equals the budgetary allocation of
the Ministry in 2010-11 BE, they feel, instead of ensuring that the
amount is spent for the purpose it has been sanctioned in the budget,
the Government is mindlessly releasing the funds for the imple-
menting agencies at the fag end of the year and have become a mute
spectator for the huge unspent balances. The Committee strongly
feel that there is need for planned outflow of funds throughout the
year with proper monitoring of expenditure. They apprehend that
such a practice might have been the reason for the Revised Estimate
2009-10 of the Ministry being reduced by Rs. 1000 crore. The
Committee while expressing serious concern over the trend of huge
unspent balance would like to strongly recommend that the
Government should analyse the position State and Union territory-
wise and take suitable corrective measures accordingly so that
funds flow to the States in time. The Committee should also be
kept apprised of the follow-up action taken in this regard.”

(Recommendation Para No.3.9)

2
6. The Ministry in their Action Taken Reply have stated as under:—

Sanctions and utilization reported (as on 31.08.2010), are given in

the table below:

(Amount in Rs. crore)

Year Funds Utilization Utilization/

Sanctioned reported Release (%)

2007-08 2618.09 2566.38 98.02

2008-09 3029.15 2787.40 92.02

2009-10 3534.96 2035.97* 57.60

2010-11 2091.67 * NA

Total 11273.87 7389.75 80.48

(*) Utilization Certificate not yet due.

“As may be seen in the table above, the utilization reported is to the
extent of 98.02% of the funds sanctioned during 2007-08 and 92.02%
in respect of funds sanctioned during 2008-09. In respect of grants
sanctioned during 2009-10, the UCs are due by 31.03.2011 as provided
under the GFR. However, States are at liberty to submit UCs even
before that date. Accordingly, MoPR has so far received UCs worth
Rs. 2035.97 crore which works out to 57.6% of the funds sanctioned
during 2009-10.

It is true that the Ministry of Finance (MoF) had reduced the allocation
for BRGF under 2009-10 owing to slow pace of expenditure during the
first half of the financial year. In fact, MoF had indicated its inclination
to cut the allocation by as much as Rs. 2000 crore owing to slow pace
of expenditure. However, after the Ministry informed the MoF about
the reasons for the slow pace of the expenditure in the initial months,
which was mainly due to the General Elections to the Lok Sabha that
were held in May, 2009, and also showed the improved pace of releases
from October, 2009 onwards, the Ministry of Finance reduced the cut

3
 by Rs.1000 crore. Finally, the allocation for the Ministry as a whole
was reduced by Rs.1000 crore, which was reflected entirely in the
BRGF.

As regards the observation of the Committee regarding release of funds

at the fag end of the year, it is submitted that the Ministry has been
striving to achieve an even flow of sanctions in line with the Monthly
Expenditure Plan indicated by the Ministry of Finance under the Cash
Management Scheme (CMS).

However, the releases to States under BRGF are incumbent upon receipt
of annual plans, utilization certificates, audit reports and progress
reports. Some States delay in submission of one or more of these
documents, which leads to delay in release of their entitlements by the
Ministry. As stated above, owing to the sustained efforts of the Ministry,
the pace of sanctions has improved during 2010-11. However, the
Ministry is still finding it difficult to procure the relevant documents
from five States, namely, Assam, J&K, Meghalaya, Tamil Nadu and
Uttarakhand. In respect of Assam, J&K, Meghalaya and Tamil Nadu,
the documents mentioned before have not been received in full whereas
in respect of Uttarakhand the DPCs have not been constituted. The
Ministry has constantly been reminding these States for taking the
suitable action to facilitate release of funds. In respect of other States,
the situation is well under control. Owing to the sustained efforts of
the Ministry, during 2010-11 sanctions under BRGF as on 31.08.2010
have been of the order of Rs. 2091.67 crore, which is about 41.42%
of the annual allocation under BRGF and is in line with the fund flow
expected under the CMS.”

(Reply to Recommendation Para No. 3.9)

7. The Committee while taking note of the efforts made by

the Ministry of Panchayati Raj for planned outflow of funds to the
States would like the Ministry to vigorously take up the issue of non-
submission of Utilization Certificates with the defaulting States so that
pendency could be resolved without harming the interest of people of
States.

4
B. Role of Gram Sabha and holding their meetings four times in a year

Recommendation (Serial No. 5, Para No. 4.5)

8. The Committee had recommended as under:—

“The Committee note with concern that the Ministry of Panchayati

Raj does not have requisite information regarding holding of four
Gram Sabha meetings in a year or holding of Mahila Sabha and
Ward Sabha meetings in the different States and Union territories
across the country. Maharashtra is the only State which has reported
organizing Mahila Sabha meetings before Gram Sabha meeting.
Information in this respect is yet to be collected from other States/
Union territories. The Committee feel that by merely circulating a
Circular on 2.10.2009 regarding holding of the regular Gram Sabha
meetings and declaring 2009-10 as the ‘Year of Gram Sabha’ does
not complete the enormous task entrusted to the Ministry of
Panchayati Raj. The Committee, therefore, urge the Ministry to find
out the details of holding of Gram Sabha, Mahila Sabha and Ward
Sabha meetings in all States and Union territories without
any further delay. They also desire the Ministry to circulate a
model format regarding conduct of Gram Sabha meetings to each
Gram Panchayat in the country and inform the Committee
accordingly.”

(Recommendation Para No. 4.5)

9. The Ministry in their Action Taken Reply have stated as under:—

“The States and UTs were sensitized vide Circulars dated 2.10.2009
about the importance of activating Gram Sabhas, Mahila Sabhas,
Ward Sabhas etc. It was also indicated that the good practices that
provide for people’s assemblies below the Gram Sabha such as
Ward Sabhas, Mahila Sabhas and Bal Sabhas should be promoted
and the Ward Sabhas etc. need to meet before the Gram Sabha
meetings. In this context “Monitoring Format for Gram Sabhas”
was also circulated to the States/UTs in which General Information

5
 about the Village Panchayat and also the details about functioning,
meetings etc., of Gram Sabha could be incorporated. To ascertain
the position about the activities undertaken by the States/UTs in this
behalf, all States/UTs have been requested to intimate the position
and also indicate the reasons for not holding the meetings of the
Mahila Sabhas before the meeting of the Gram Sabhas in the
concerned cases.”

(Reply to Recommendation Para No. 4.5)

10. The Committee while noting non-availability of requisite

information with the Ministry regarding holding of four Gram Sabha
meetings in a year or holding of Mahila Sabha and Ward Sabha meetings
in the country had urged the Ministry to find out details of holding of
these meetings in all States and UTs and to circulate a model format
regarding conduct of Gram Sabha meeting to each Gram Panchayat in
the country. The Ministry in their reply, while referring to its earlier
Circulars of ‘Monitoring Format’ for Gram Sabhas, to States/UTs have
also stated that all States have been requested to intimate the position
and indicate reasons for not holding the meetings of the Mahila Sabha
before the meeting of Gram Sabhas. The Committee while urging the
Ministry to expedite the compilation of relevant data would like to
suggest that online system for monitoring and holding of these meetings
should be developed so that more transparency and accountability could
be ensured in the functioning of PRIs.

C. Number of rural districts in the country vis-à-vis the District

Panchayats

Recommendation (Serial No. 9, Para No. 4.36)

11. The Committee had recommended as under:—

“It is quite surprising to find that the Ministry of Panchayati Raj

do not have information on the exact number of District Panchayats
in the country as on date. The Committee note with concern that
619 different rural districts have only 543 District Panchayats. In
this age of super connectivity and information technology, the

6
 Ministry of Panchayati Raj is still maintaining the information in
this regard which was last collected during 2007-08. While
expressing their dissatisfaction over the way in which the Ministry
of Panchayati Raj is maintaining the information on number of
District Panchayats, Intermediate Panchayats, Village Panchayats
and number of villages in the country, the Committee, strongly
recommend that the Ministry should always maintain the updated
information in this regard with them.”

(Recommendation Para No. 4.36)

12. The Ministry in their Action Taken reply have stated as under:—

“All the States/UTs were requested to furnish information

regarding ‘details of rural districts that do not have District
Panchayats’ vide our letter dated 25.03.2010. Four subsequent
reminders dated 30.03.2010, 26.04.2010, 01.06.2010 and 15.7.2010
also have been sent requesting to furnish the requisite information
immediately.

In this regard, requisite information has been received only from

18 out of 25 States and 5 out of 6 UTs so far. Details from the
remaining 7 States (Assam, Gujarat, Jammu & Kashmir, Orissa,
Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Goa) and 1 UT (Dadra & Nagar Haveli)
are yet to be received.

A consolidated statement in respect of 18 States and 5 UTs is

enclosed as at Annex-5. We are pursuing with the defaulting
7 States and one UT to provide the relevant information and the
same will be provided immediately after receipt of the requisite
information from them.

The Ministry of Panchayati Raj has developed an online facility viz.

National Panchayat Directory, which is part of National Panchayat
Portal, where States can feed and update the information (such as
name, parent local body, constituent villages etc.) relating to
Panchayats at different tiers. With a view to ensure availability of
updated information, an advisory has also been issued to States/UTs

7
 for online uploading of the latest information on this online
directory.”

(Reply to Recommendation Para No. 4.36)

13. The Committee had recommended the Ministry to maintain

updated information on number of District Panchayats, Intermediate
Panchayats, Village Panchayats and number of villages. The Committee
have now been informed in the action taken reply that the requisite
information has been received only from 18 out of 25 States and 5 out
of 6 Union Territories. The Committee are at a loss to understand, how
the Ministry would effectively function in the absence of basic data.
They, therefore, reiterate their recommendation that necessary steps be
taken to maintain the updated information. On the issue of development
of online facility where States can feed and update the information
relating to Panchayats at different tiers, the Committee would like to be
apprised of the further progress made in this regard.

D. Panchayat Ghar buildings in different States

Recommendation (Serial No. 12, Para No. 4.50)

14. The Committee had recommended as under:—

“The Committee note that the Capacity Building and Training of

Elected Representatives is one of the important aspects of the
Panchayati Raj system in the country. They are surprised to find
that the Ministry of Panchayati Raj do not have information even
about the number of Panchayat Ghar buildings in the States of
Arunachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Meghalaya, Mizoram,
Nagaland, Uttarakhand and in all Union territories of the country
except Delhi and Chandigarh as on date. The Committee also
cannot understand how in the absence of such basic information
as also information regarding availability of electricity in the
Panchayat Ghar/Office/Bhawans, the Ministry ambitiously
plans for computer connectivity to Panchayats. The Committee,

8
 therefore, recommend that the Ministry should obtain the latest
information regarding number of Panchayat Ghars in all States and
Union territories and inform them accordingly. The Ministry may
also in consultation with other Ministries draw up a Plan under
which Panchayat Ghars for all the Panchayats can be constructed
by pooling resources of different Centrally Sponsored and Central
Sector Schemes together in a time bound manner. In view of the
proposed 50 per cent reservation to women in Panchayati Raj
Institutions at three levels and the fact that such reservation for
women has already been made in States like Bihar, Chhattisgarh,
Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and
Uttarakhand, it should also be ensured that the Panchayat Ghars
have the provision for office space and basic amenities like toilets
etc.”

(Recommendation Para No. 4.50)

15. The Ministry in their Action Taken reply have stated as under:—

“Ministry has been encouraging the State Governments to give

priority for the construction of Panchayat Ghars availing funds from
the various available sources including MGNREGS, BRGF and
RGSY. A circular dated 21st January, 2010 has been issued in
this regard (copy at Annex-6). M/oRD has also included
construction of Panchayat Ghars as eligible item of work under the
MGNREGS.”

(Reply to Recommendation Para No. 4.50)

16. The Committee have been informed by the Ministry that they
had issued a Circular encouraging the State Governments to avail funds
available under BRGF and RGSY schemes to construct Panchayat
buildings on priority basis. The Committee strongly feel that merely
issuing Circular would not serve the purpose. The Committee fail to
understand as to how the progress would be monitored by the Ministry
in the absence of latest information regarding number of Panchayat

9
Ghars in all States and Union Territories. Needless to say that capacity
building of Panchayati Raj Institutions cannot be made in the absence
of Panchayat Ghars. They, therefore, reiterate that the construction of
Panchayat Ghars be given top priority and compilation of latest
information regarding number of Panchayat Ghars be done at the
earliest.

E. Accountability and Transparency

Recommendation (Serial No. 13, Para No. 4.54)

17. The Committee had recommended as under:—

“The Committee observe that the Ministry of Panchayati Raj do not

have information on constitution and functioning of Ward Sabhas and
Mahila Sabhas in different Panchayats. They also note that except in
Jharkhand, Pudducherry and Tripura, Standing Committees of Gram
Panchayats are reportedly constituted. The Committee find that only in
Maharashtra, Mahila Sabhas precede the Gram Sabha meetings.
Therefore, the reason for not holding the Mahila Sabha meeting before
the Gram Sabha may be obtained from the States other than Maharashtra
and all Union territories expeditiously and the Committee be informed
accordingly. The Committee would like the Ministry to collect the
detailed information immediately”

(Recommendation Para No. 4.54)

18. The Ministry in their Action Taken reply have stated as under:—

“The States and UTs were sensitized vide circulars dated 2.10.2009
about the importance of activating Gram Sabhas, Mahila Sabhas,
Ward Sabhas etc. It was also indicated that the good practices that
provide for people’s assemblies below the Gram Sabha such as
Ward Sabhas, Mahila Sabhas and Bal Sabhas should be promoted
and the Ward Sabhas etc. need to meet before the Gram Sabha
meetings. In this context “Monitoring Format for Gram Sabhas”
was also circulated to the States/UTs in which General Information

10
 about the Village Panchayat and also the details about functioning,
meetings etc. of Gram Sabha could be incorporated. To ascertain
the position about the activities undertaken by the States/UTs in this
behalf, all States/UTs have been requested to intimate the position
and also indicate the reasons for not holding the meetings of the
Mahila Sabhas before the meeting of the Gram Sabhas in the
concerned cases.”

(Reply to Recommendation Para No. 4.54)

19. The Committee note that merely requesting the States/UTs

through a routine Circular to intimate the position and also indicate the
reasons for not holding the meetings of the Mahila Sabha before the
meeting of the Gram Sabha will not suffice. What is really needed is to
make the States/UTs accountable towards their responsibilities in this
regard. The Committee desire the Ministry to be more pro-active in
making the States/UTs accountable and would like to suggest the
Ministry to utilize the online system.

F. Allocation and utilisation of funds recommended by the Thirteenth

Finance Commission

Recommendation (Serial No. 18, Para No. 4.80)

20. The Committee had recommended as under:—

“The Committee recommend that Ministry of Panchayati Raj

should impress upon the Ministry of Finance to issue detailed
guidelines immediately regarding allocation and utilisation of funds
recommended by the Thirteenth Finance Commission to the States
and Union territories.”

(Recommendation Para No. 4.80)

21. The Ministry in their Action Taken reply have stated as under:—

“Implementation of 13th FC recommendations has commenced

from the fiscal year 2010-11. Pending issue of necessary guidelines

11
 on release and utilisation of Grant, Ministry of Finance has already
released the first instalment of Basic Grant for PRIs amounting to
Rs. 2821.72 crore. In addition, an amount of Rs. 79.90 crore has
also been released under ‘Special Area Basic Grant’ for the
Schedule V & VI areas and areas where Part IX and IXA do not
apply. Share of Basic Grant has not been released to Jharkhand
and J&K due to non-existence of elected Panchayats in these
States.”

(Reply to Recommendation Para No. 4.80)

22. The Committee are perturbed to know that necessary

guidelines on release and utilisation of grants to PRIs as recommended
by Thirteenth Finance Commission are yet to be issued by the Ministry
of Finance. The Committee are of the considered view that in the absence
of guidelines it would be difficult for PRIs to effectively utilise funds
meant for development of Panchayats. The Committee would like the
Ministry to convey the concern of the Committee to the Ministry of
Finance for issuing necessary guidelines immediately.

G. Concurrent evaluation of the schemes being implemented on or

before 2004

Recommendation (Serial No. 19, Para No. 4.85)

23. The Committee had recommended as under:—

“The Committee have been informed that no concurrent evaluation

of any single scheme has yet been initiated by the Ministry in six
years of its existence. They feel continuance of implementation of
schemes from one plan to the other without finding out its real
impact and benefits through the system of independent and
impartial concurrent evaluation is not a sign of good governance.
They, therefore, recommend that the Ministry should ensure that
each of the schemes being implemented by it is evaluated
concurrently during the Eleventh Five Year Plan itself.”

(Recommendation Para No. 4.85)

12
24. The Ministry in their Action Taken reply have stated as under:—

“This Ministry had requested the Planning Commission to

undertake measurement of the outcomes with reference to the
objectives and the financial expenditure and evaluate the BRGF
programme. In early 2009 the Planning Commission had opined
that it would be too early to evaluate the programme at this stage.

Thereafter, the Ministry had approached the World Bank for

undertaking an independent review cum evaluation of the BRGF.
Accordingly a World Bank Mission was sent to eight key States
in July 2009 for evaluating the implementation of the programme
in two districts of each of these States. The Mission has submitted
their report in March 2010. The Ministry has taken several actions
with respect to the recommendations of the Mission and also
forwarded the Report to the States for taking necessary action.

The Ministry has also set up a National Advisory cum Review

Committee (NARC) in May, 2009 under the Chairpersonship of
Shri V. Ramachandran, with the following Terms of Reference:

(a) Assess the extent to which objectives of BRGF have been

fulfilled.

(b) Review the quality of programme management at Central,

State and District levels.

(c) Assess the quality of district plans, frequently occurring

deficiencies, aspects of capacity building, planning process,
role of Training Support Institutions etc.

(d) Adequacy of monitoring mechanism.

(e) Need for modification in the objective and design of BRGF

including the Block as Unit for BRGF funding.

A copy of the OM No. N-11019/538/2007- Pol.I (Vol.II) dated

26.05.2009, constituting the NARC is at Annex-8. The Committee

13
 has submitted its First report in early July 2010. Recommendations
of the Committee and response of MoPR is at Annex-9.

The Planning Commission have vide their OM No.PEO/16(98)/

2010/TC dated 24.02.2010 (copy enclosed Annex-10) constituted
a Consultancy Evaluation-cum-Monitoring Committee for
Evaluation of the BRGF. The terms of reference of the Committee
are as follows:

(i) To provide guidance on preparation of study design including

the objectives of the study, methodology, instrument of
observation etc.

(ii) To guide in shortlisting institution for outsourcing of the

study.

(iii) To provide guidance on identification and development

of appropriate input, activity, output, outcome and impact
indicators for assessment of the performance of the
implementation of the scheme.

(iv) To ensure the quality of data collection, organization of

the collected data, analysis of the data, drafting of the
report, etc.

This Committee met in July 2010 to discuss the draft TOR for the
study. The institutions/ agencies to conduct the evaluation are being
identified to conduct study.

Evaluation of RGSY:

The scheme of Rashtriya Gram Swaraj Yojana (RGSY) was

evaluated by M/s Santek Consultants and M/s Council for Training
& Research in Ecology & Environment (CTREE) in 2007 before
its continuation during the 11th Plan period. M/s Santek
Consultants had concluded that training interventions on a
sustainable basis are essential to comprehensively build the

14
capacity of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs). In many Panchayats,
the members have begun to understand the complexities of their
responsibilities thereby regular training will assist them in fulfilling
the aspirations of their constituencies. According to the findings of
report the impact of training was multi-dimensional viz.; solving
local problems through participatory decision making, responsive
handling of public grievance, equipping participants with
operational skills required for day-to-day performance of
functions devolved to Panchayats, understating the planning and
implementation aspects of rural development programmes more
clearly. The training programmes have made a significant impact
in terms of awareness and sensitization over the Elected Women
Representatives. The agency recommended/ suggested that Scheme
should not merely be confined to training programmes, but should
also include the components like improving infrastructure at
Panchayat level, IT interventions, monitoring and evaluation of
programme. The training strategy should be a composite mix of
various interventions like interactive satellite training, face to face
training, networking, community mobilisation, Panchayati Raj TV
Channel. The first and initial training should be provided to the
newly elected representatives within 2-3 months of their election.
Subsequently, every year there should be a follow up on training
of PRIs. Duration of training for 1-2 days is not sufficient
for effective implementation of programme. Hence, the
report recommended 3-4 days of training programme. It also
recommended that the content of training and processes of training
programme should be relevant to the ground reality.

M/s CTREE had submitted State-wise reports. They have also given
some common suggestions for improving the training programme.
Some of these suggestions are:

• Matters related to village revenue administration should be

discussed emphatically in the course of training to the GP
level elected representatives and functionaries.

15
 • Separate and easy to understand training modules be designed
for illiterate elected representatives, as the expected benefits
were not seen reflected among them.

• Experienced and former Panchayati Raj Representatives

should be involved as trainers in a greater way besides the
conventional trainers.

• The CEO-ZP should be made accountable for the attendance

of the elected members.

• To avoid duplication and overlapping of the training

programmes, a training policy in a well coordinated approach
be structured.

• The training to the PRI elected members and functionaries be

made more need based with more focus on available resource
utilization. For better and cost-effective training of Panchayati
Raj, more efforts be made to utilize mass media for their
capacity building.

• Local NGOs, those having need based infrastructure and

network in the villages may be assigned for generating
awareness, organizing workshops and training at the Panchayat
level.

• The training programme for the GP level elected

representatives should not be scheduled or organized during
agricultural cultivation period that vary from region to region
in the State.

• The participants other than functionaries should be provided

actual travelling allowance and compensation for days
consumed during training.

Many recommendations of M/s Santek Consultants and

M/s CTREE were incorporated during framing of guidelines of

16
 RGSY Scheme in the first year of 11th Five Year Plan. The duration
of training programme has been kept for a period of 03 days of
elected representatives of PRIs and 05 days for Central and State
level functionaries. In order to augment the training infrastructure,
this Ministry has provided financial assistance to States for
establishment of distance learning facility via satellite. Further, the
financial assistance was provided to establish training institutes and
resource centres in respect of the Hilly States and States of North
East Region. The provision of reimbursing the travel expense on
actual Rail/Bus fare was made for the elected representatives only
in the guidelines of RGSY Scheme.

The MoPR has now decided to undertake a fresh evaluation of

RGSY through an expert agency identified by the UNDP under its
Capacity Development for Local Governance (CDLG) Project. The
selected agency (CTRAN) has been assigned the task in July 2010
and expected to complete the same within 3 months.”

(Reply to Recommendation Para No.4.85)

25. The Committee in their Sixth Report had recommended the

Ministry for concurrent evaluation of each of the schemes being
implemented by it to find out its real importance and benefits. The
Ministry in their action taken reply have stated that they have taken
several actions on the recommendations of independent review-cum-
evaluation study on BRGF undertaken by World Bank Mission.
The Ministry have also informed the Constitution of Consultancy
Evaluation-cum-Monitoring Committee by the Planning Commission for
evaluation of the BRGF alongwith the changes brought in the RGSY
scheme on the basis of evaluation done by M/s Santek Consultants and
M/s Council for Training & Research in Ecology & Environment
(CTREE) in 2007 before its continuation during the Eleventh Plan
period. Further, the Ministry have informed that they have assigned the
task of fresh evaluation of RGSY to M/s CTRAN selected by the UNDP
which is expected to complete the study within 3 months. The Committee

17
while appreciating recent efforts of the Ministry for concurrent
evaluation of the BRGF and RGSY Schemes would also like the Ministry
to initiate similar evaluation of other schemes such as PMEYSA, RBH
etc. They also like to be apprised of the findings of the evaluation study
of BRGF and RGSY Schemes.

H. Performance of BRGF

Recommendation (Serial No. 24, Para No. 5.20)

26. The Committee had recommended as under:—

“The Committee also recommend that the role of District Planning

Committee (DPC) and the High Power Committee (HPC) should
change from approval of plans under BRGF to preparation,
guidance, co-ordination and support to the local planning process
and strengthening of horizontal co-ordination between PRIs and
line departments. Further, technical capacity of DPCs may be
strengthened. The Ministry may consider empowering the States to
allow PRIs to choose the service that is most useful for them under
the capacity building component.”

(Recommendation Para No. 5.20)

27. The Ministry in their Action Taken reply have stated as under:—

“The Ministry has already advised the State Governments on the

role the DPCs and HPCs should perform (a copy of the circular
dated 07.10.2009 in this regard is placed at Annex-12). Regarding
strengthening technical capacity of DPCs, the Ministry had
forwarded the list of Technical Support Institutions (TSIs) to the
States with the suggestion to engage them for strengthening
capacities of local bodies and DPCs in Plan preparation and
consolidation under the BRGF. The Planning Commission had
proposed to launch a scheme for support to planning process at the
National, State and District levels which will include strengthening
capacities of the DPCs. The Ministry had supported the proposal

18
 of the Planning Commission. However, in April 2010 the Planning
Commission had informed that though there was no budget
allocation for the scheme in 2010-11, yet the scheme would be
better handled by the MoPR. Accordingly the MoPR has submitted
an EFC Memorandum to the Ministry of Finance on 12.08.2010
on the Scheme for Support to Planning Process at National, State,
District and Sub-District Levels. The Ministry has examined the
proposal to transfer a part of the Capacity Building grants to the
ZPs for using it as per their perceived requirements and found it
difficult do so for the following reasons:

(a) The BRGF is an Additional Central Assistance (ACA) to the

State Plans.

(b) State Governments during the review meeting held on

23.04.2010 unanimously opposed (except for Andhra Pradesh)
the proposal for transfer of Capacity Building funds to the
Districts bypassing the State Governments.”

(Reply to Recommendation Para No. 5.20)

28. The Committee had earlier recommended for change of the

role of District Planning Committees (DPCs) and the High Power
Committees (HPCs) for approval of plans under BRGF to preparation,
guidance, co-ordination and support to the local planning process. They
had also recommended for strengthening the capacity of DPCs and
empowering States to allow PRIs to choose the service that is most useful
for them under the capacity building component. The Ministry in their
action taken reply have stated that while advising the State Governments
on the role of DPCs and HPCs, a list of Technical Support Institutions
(TSIs) to the States which could be engaged for strengthening capacities
of local bodies and DPCs in Plan preparation was also forwarded. They
have also informed the Committee about submission of an EFC
Memorandum to the Ministry of Finance on the scheme for support to
the Planning Process at the National, State, District and Sub-District

19
levels as proposed by Planning Commission. The Ministry have further
stated about opposition of States (except for Andhra Pradesh) on the
proposal for transfer of Capacity Building funds to the District
by-passing the State Government and nature of BRGF as additional
Central assistance to the State plans. The Committee would like to
mention that they have never recommended transfer of funds to the
Districts by-passing the States. What the Committee had desired was
to define the precise role of District Planning Committees and High
Powered Committees. The Committee would also like to be apprised of
salient features of proposal of the Ministry on the Scheme for support
to the planning process at National, State, District and Sub-District
levels.

20
 CHAPTER II

RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED

BY THE GOVERNMENT

Recommendation (Serial No. 1, Para No. 2.5)

The Committee note that the Government is not implementing the
direction 73 A of the Directions by the Speaker, Lok Sabha, in the right spirit.
As per the said direction, the Minister concerned should make the Statement
on action-taken by the Government on their recommendations once in six
months. The Committee observe that none of the Statements were laid within
the stipulated six-months period. Besides, the Statements laid, did not indicate
the status of action taken on the recommendations which had been categorised
as interim reply in the action-taken Reports of the Committee. The
Committee, therefore, desire that action taken by Government on the
recommendations categorized as interim be intimated to them without any
further delay. The Committee also desire that, in future, the Government
should review the previous recommendations made by the Committee and
intimate the Committee about the stage of their implementation before
presentation of the Demands for Grants for the next financial year. Further,
the Statement laid should not merely be a reproduction of action taken notes
and should reflect the effective implementation of recommendations made
by the Committee in different States and Union territories.
Reply of the Government
In regard to the direction 73A of the Directions by the Speaker,
Lok Sabha, it may be reiterated that sincere efforts are made by the
Ministry to lay the Statement on action taken by the Government on the
recommendations of the Committee within the stipulated period.
The Ministry of Panchayati Raj has reviewed the previous
recommendations made by the Committee in their Reports in the periodical
meetings of the Chief Secretaries/Secretaries of State Governments/UTs. The
Ministry would continue to review the same and intimate the status to
Committee.
[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,
dated 22.9.2010]

21
 Recommendation (Serial No. 2, Para No. 3.9)
The Committee are disturbed to note that huge unspent balances of
Rs. 5062.77 crore as on 28.02.2010 were left with the implementing agencies
in six different schemes being implemented by the Ministry. The unspent
balance for six other schemes is not available with the Ministry which shows
lack of sufficient monitoring of the releases made by them. Not only the total
unspent balance in six different schemes equals the budgetary allocation of
the Ministry in 2010-11 BE. They feel, instead of ensuring that the amount
is spent for the purpose it has been sanctioned in the budget, the Government
is mindlessly releasing the funds for the implementing agencies at the fag
end of the year and have become a mute spectator for the huge unspent
balances. The Committee strongly feel that there is need for planned outflow
of funds throughout the year with proper monitoring of expenditure. They
apprehend that such a practice might have been the reason for the revised
estimate 2009-10 of the Ministry being reduced by Rs. 1000 crore. The
Committee while expressing serious concern over the trend of huge unspent
balance would like to strongly recommend that the Government should
analyse the position State and Union territory-wise and take suitable
corrective measures accordingly so that funds flow to the States in time. The
Committee should also be kept apprised of the follow-up action taken in this
regard.
Reply of the Government
Sanctions and utilization reported (as on 31.08.2010), are given in the
table below:
Amount in Rs. Crore

Year Funds Utilization Utilization/

Sanctioned reported Release (%)
2007-08 2618.09 2566.38 98.02

2008-09 3029.15 2787.40 92.02

2009-10 3534.96 2035.97* 57.60

2010-11 2091.67 * NA

Total 11273.87 7389.75 80.48

(*) Utilization Certificate not yet due.

22
 As may be seen in the table above, the utilization reported is to the
extent of 98.02% of the funds sanctioned during 2007-08 and 92.02% in
respect of funds sanctioned during 2008-09. In respect of grants sanctioned
during 2009-10, the UCs are due by 31.03.2011 as provided under the GFR.
However, States are at liberty to submit UCs even before that date.
Accordingly, MoPR has so far received UCs worth Rs. 2035.97 crore which
works out to 57.6% of the funds sanctioned during 2009-10.

It is true that the Ministry of Finance (MoF) had reduced the allocation
for BRGF under 2009-10 owing to slow pace of expenditure during the first
half of the financial year. In fact, MoF had indicated its inclination to cut
the allocation by as much as Rs. 2000 crore owing to slow pace of
expenditure. However, after the Ministry informed the MoF about the reasons
for the slow pace of the expenditure in the initial months, which was mainly
due to the General Elections to the Lok Sabha that were held in May 2009,
and also showed the improved pace of releases from October 2009 onwards,
the Ministry of Finance reduced the cut by Rs. 1000 crore. Finally, the
allocation for the Ministry as a whole was reduced by Rs. 1000 crore, which
was reflected entirely in the BRGF.

As regards the observation of the Committee regarding release of funds

at the fag end of the year, it is submitted that the Ministry has been striving
to achieve an even flow of sanctions in line with the Monthly Expenditure
Plan indicated by the Ministry of Finance under the Cash Management
Scheme (CMS).

However, the releases to States under BRGF are incumbent upon receipt
of annual plans, utilization certificates, audit reports and progress reports.
Some States delay in submission of one or more of these documents, which
leads to delay in release of their entitlements by the Ministry. As stated above,
owing to the sustained efforts of the Ministry, the pace of sanctions has
improved during 2010-11. However, the Ministry is still finding it difficult
to procure the relevant documents from five States, namely, Assam, J&K,
Meghalaya, Tamil Nadu and Uttarakhand. In respect of Assam, J&K,
Meghalaya and Tamil Nadu, the documents mentioned before have not been
received in full whereas in respect of Uttarakhand the DPCs have not been

23
constituted. The Ministry has constantly been reminding these States for
taking the suitable action to facilitate release of funds. In respect of other
States, the situation is well under control. Owing to the sustained efforts of
the Ministry, during 2010-11 sanctions under BRGF as on 31.08.2010 have
been of the order of Rs. 2091.67 crore, which is about 41.42% of the annual
allocation under BRGF and is in line with the fund flow expected under the
CMS.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

Comments of the Committee

(Please see Paragraph No. 7 of Chapter 1 of the Report)

Recommendation (Serial No. 3, Para No. 3.16)

The Committee are not at all happy with the financial practices of the
Ministry since its inception in May, 2004. They find that between 2004-05
and 2008-09, Rs. 3715.81 crore was surrendered as compared to the budget
estimates. Not only that, total funds amounting to Rs. 97.35 crore have also
been re-appropriated between 2006-07 and 2009-10, which is not a standard
financial practice. Another disturbing feature is that the Ministry has never
achieved the monthly expenditure plan since 2007-08, the information about
which has been made available to the Committee. The monitoring mechanism
of the Ministry is also found to be not having adequate information with
regard to proper monitoring of funds released to the various State
Governments, Union territory administrations and the Panchayats at different
levels. The Committee, therefore, recommend suitable corrective measures
may be initiated in each of the aforesaid matters and they be apprised
accordingly.

Reply of the Government

Regarding the BRGF, the budgetary allocations were reduced at RE

stage by Rs. 1825 crore in 2006-07, Rs. 1072.50 crore in 2007-08, Rs. 780
crore in 2008-09, and there was hundred per cent achievement against
the RE budget allocations. In 2006-07, the scheme was transferred by

24
the Planning Commission in August-September, 2006 and the
Prime Minister launched the Programme at Barpeta (Assam) in
February, 2007. Consequently there was less expenditure and substantial
reduction at RE stage. In 2007-08 and 2008-09, some States did not have
District Planning Committees (DPCs) for consolidation of local plans into
District Plans, which is a necessary condition for release of Development
Grants under BRGF.

In 2009-10, though the expenditure was lesser in first two quarters,

owing to the General Elections to the Lok Sabha, from the third quarter
the pace of implementation had picked. Consequently, the Ministry had
achieved the targets of Cash Management Scheme (69% of Budgetary
allocation) by the third quarter of 2009-10. However, the Ministry of Finance
still decided to reduce the allocation of Ministry of Panchayati Raj at RE
stage.

In 2010-11 for further improvement in programme planning and

management, the following steps have been taken:

(i) States have been advised to submit their Action Plans latest during
the first quarter of 2010-11;

(ii) States have been advised to enter the Progress Reports online on
Plan Plus;

(iii) State Level Workshops have been convened to discuss the progress
of previous years and Annual Plans of the current year;

(iv) Suitable Advisories have been issued to States for improving

programme planning and management; and

(v) An all India Review was conducted for various programmes of

MoPR on 23rd April 2010.

These efforts have improved the pace of funds release during 2010-11.
As on 12-08-2010 the Ministry has sanctioned Rs. 1641.74 crore.

As regards the re-appropriation of funds amounting to Rs. 97.35 crore,

it is clarified that an amount of Rs. 41.07 crore was re-appropriated during
2006-07 to 2009-10 for North-Eastern States which is mandatory and is just

25
a formality to re-appropriate the funds from non-functional heads to the
function heads. The detail is as under:—

Re-appropriation for NE States (mandatory 10% of BE)

Year Amount (in crores)

2005-06 4.94
2006-07 7.50
2007-08 10.00
2008-09 8.30
2009-10 10.33
Total 41.07

It is further stated that a National Convention of Presidents of Zilla

Parishads and Panchayat Samitis was held on 22nd–24th April, 2008 at
Burari Ground, Delhi in which about 8000 elected representatives of all the
3-tiers of PRIs participated to commemorate Panchayati Raj Divas and
sensitization programmes. Hon’ble PM addressed the Convention with very
fruitful results. It was an event of National importance which necessitated
the re-appropriation of Rs. 22 crore in the year 2007-08 and 2008-09. This
was done with the approval of Ministry of Finance under the Scheme of
Media & Publicity to meet out the committed liabilities for holding the said
Convention. It is also relevant to mention that a scheme namely Technical
Support for Capacity Building and Training of Functionaries of District
Planning Committees and Zilla Parishads having a budget of Rs. 25 crore
could not be implemented as the scheme could not get approved as no new
scheme was allowed under the instructions of Ministry of Finance and the
amount has to be re-appropriated to other schemes on need basis. In this way,
the amount of Rs. 75 crore was re-appropriated during the period 2005-06
to 2009-10 which was fully justified. The remaining amount of Rs. 22.35 was
a normal re-appropriation among the schemes during the 5 years to meet a
need base requirement keeping in view the small budget of the Ministry. The
Ministry has tried its best to adopt standard financial practice.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

26
 Recommendation (Serial No. 4, Para No. 3.17)

The Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992 came into effect from
1992 and the Ministry of Panchayati Raj was made a separate Ministry in
2004. The Committee feel that in order to give fillip to the upliftment of
Panchayati Raj Institutions in the country, the allocation for the Ministry of
Panchayati Raj which is a little above Rs. 5000 crore during 2010-11 BE is
too little. Notwithstanding the poor performance and monitoring of
implementation of the schemes by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj, the
Committee feel that attention to the desired extent has not been paid by the
Planning Commission for upliftment of Panchayats at all the three levels as
reflected in the meager allocation to the said Ministry year after year. In order
to implement the historic legislation of the Constitution (73rd Amendment)
Act, 1992 in it’s letter and spirit, they recommend strongly that this concern
of the Committee be taken up at the highest level so as to have the allocation
of the Ministry in the coming years substantially increased.

Reply of the Government

The concerns of the Committee have been conveyed to the Planning

Commission. It is also mentioned that at the time of the approval of the
Annual Plan 2010-11, Secretary (Panchayati Raj) has taken up this matter
with the Planning Commission. However, the allocation for the Ministry was
marginally increased i.e. from Rs. 110 crores to Rs. 120 crores under the
Central Plan. For Annual Plan 2011-12, the Planning Commission will be
persuaded to increase the Plan Outlay for the Ministry keeping in view the
recommendation of the Committee.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

Recommendation (Serial No. 6, Para No. 4.10)

The Committee note with concern that the mandatory provisions of

Part IX of the Constitution, which was inserted by the Constitution
(73rd Amendment) Act, 1992 remain to be implemented as on date in
Jharkhand, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttarakhand. Even after knowing this
state of affairs in these States, the Ministry is yet to initiate any concrete

27
measures in this regard. They, therefore, recommend that the defaulter States
may be impressed upon to adhere to the provisions of Part IX of the
Constitution without any further delay. Action taken in this regard may be
intimated to the Committee.

Reply of the Government

It is stated that the Government of Uttarakhand have informed that they

are in the process of forming District Planning Committees (DPCs) in the
State. State Government of Jharkhand has started the process for holding
election of PRIs as the pending litigation has been settled.

J&K Government have its own Panchayat Raj Act, but due to
unavoidable circumstances election could not be held in the State.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

Recommendation (Serial No. 7, Paragraph No. 4.25)

The Committee are concerned to note that important aspects of

Panchayati Raj like devolution of 3Fs viz. Functions, Functionaries and
Finances, existence of Parallel Bodies in all States and Union territories of
the country etc. have not been given due importance so far by the Ministry
in spite of repeatedly being emphasised by this Committee in their various
Reports. They strongly recommend that the Ministry should urge all State
Governments and Union territory administrations to take decisive steps to
devolve 3Fs viz. Functions, Functionaries and Finances, in that order to
Panchayats at appropriate levels before resorting to any other step and
thereafter take concrete immediate steps to abolish the existence of Parallel
Bodies. The Committee note that the study of Devolution Index (DI), has
been assigned to the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) whose
report was expected by 28.02.2010. They, therefore, urge the Ministry to
expedite the said study to know the exact devolution in all the States and
Union territories.

Reply of the Government

1. The Ministry of Panchayati Raj has been making all efforts to

ensure that 3Fs (Functions, Funds and Functionaries) are devolved to

28
Panchayats as envisaged in Article 243G of the Constitution read with its
Eleventh Schedule. Detailed guidelines were issued vide letter No. N-11019/
681/08-Pol. dated 19.1.2009 (Copy enclosed at Annex-1) to the Central
Ministries and the States/UTs to amend their scheme guidelines. For
devolution of 3Fs through activity mapping also, guidelines were issued vide
letter No.-N-11011/59/2006-Pol.-I(Pt.) dated 1.12.2009 (copy enclosed at
Annex-2). Guidelines on [Panchayat Finances, and Manpower for Panchayati
Raj Institution were also issued to States/UTs vide letter No.M-11011/16/
2009-P&C(AR) dated 9.4.2009 and No.M-11011/162/2008-P&C(AR) dated
23.10.2009] (copies enclosed at Annex-3 & 4).

2. MoPR also emphasized that parallel bodies should not be

established to the detriment of PRIs.

Devolution Index Report from IIPA

The report on Devolution Index (DI) for the year 2009-10 was
received from IIPA. Incentive funds were released to the following qualified
States:—

• First Prize (Top 2 States): Kerala & Karnataka Rs.2.50 crore

each.

• Second Prize (Next 2 States): Tamil Nadu & West Bengal:

Rs. 1.50 crore each.

• Third Prize (Next State): Maharashtra: Rs. 1.00 crore.

• Best performing North-East State: Sikkim.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

Recommendation (Serial No. 8, Paragraph No. 4.29)

The Committee note with concern that the mandatory provisions of

the PESA, 1996 remain to be fully implemented in all the nine States viz.
Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand,
Orissa, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan on some pretext or the
other even after fourteen years since this Act was implemented. They note

29
from the reply of the Ministry that the major violations in these States relate
to the aspects of minor forest produce, village market and money lending.
They regret to point out that even after knowing this state of affairs, the
Ministry is yet to initiate any concrete measures. The Committee, therefore,
recommend that the defaulter States may be impressed upon to implement
the provisions of the PESA, 1996 without further loss of time and the
Committee be apprised accordingly.

Reply of the Government

Action taken for implementation of PESA had been indicated in the

reply made on the point contained in the List of Points for oral evidence of
representatives of the Ministry on Demands for Grants 2010-11 to the
Committee held in March 2010. In addition, the following steps have been
taken:

1. Field visits have been made to Chhattisgarh, Orissa,

Andhra Pradesh and Jharkhand to look into implementation of
PESA. During the field visits, discussion were held with officials
of State Departments concerned with PESA implementation viz.
Panchayati Raj, Revenue, Excise, Environment and Forest and
Mining, and suggestions were made to bring relevant amendments
in provisions, where required, make rules and take steps towards
implementation.

2. Comprehensive Guidelines on implementation of PESA have been

issued on 21.5.2010 to all nine PESA States.

3. A meeting was held on 5th July, 2010 with PESA States and
Central Ministries concerned to further impress the need for
implementation of PESA and speed up its implementation.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

Recommendation (Serial No. 10, Paragraph No. 4.37)

The Committee note that District Planning is one of the important

functions of the planning process in the country. The devolution of

30
Functions, Functionaries and Finances (3Fs) is one of the main backbone of
the grassroots planning process which is also in conformity with the
provisions of article 243ZD of Part-IXA of the Constitution. They find
that the Ministry of Panchayati Raj has so far not been able to impress
upon the States and Union territories to constitute and functionalize
District Planning Committees (DPCs) in all districts of the country. They,
therefore, urge the Ministry to vigorously persuade all the States and Union
territories to immediately constitute and functionalize the DPCs without any
further delay. For this purpose, the Ministry may consider linking the
formation of DPCs with the release of funds of different schemes, so that
the States and Union territories may be impressed upon to constitute these
Committees.

Reply of the Government

It is stated that the Government of Uttarakhand have informed that they

are in the process of forming District Planning Committees (DPCs) in the
State. State Government of Jharkhand has started the process for holding
election of PRIs as the pending litigation has been settled.

At Present, funds under the scheme of BRGF are not provided to the
States where DPCs have not been constituted.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

Recommendation (Serial No. 11, Paragraph No. 4.42)

The Committee note with concern that out of 180 Centrally Sponsored
Schemes and over 800 Central Sector Schemes being implemented by
various Ministries/Departments of the Government of India, the activity
mapping showing the centrality of Panchayats has been made in the
guidelines relating to only 28 schemes as on date. Interestingly, the
Committee have found that even though the Ministry of Panchayati Raj is
implementing 9 different Centrally Sponsored/Central Sector Schemes, the
centrality of Panchayats has not been made available for the schemes being
implemented by the Ministry themselves. Further, since only in respect of

31
28 schemes the centrality of Panchayats has been mentioned by 8 different
Ministries/Departments of the Government of India, it is evident that a
gigantic task still lies before all the Ministries if they aim to provide such
facilities in each of the Centrally Sponsored/Central Sector schemes. They,
therefore, urge the Ministry of Panchayati Raj to initiate measures at the
highest level in consultation with the Planning Commission/Ministry of
Finance and Cabinet Secretariat, so that the centrality of the Panchayats can
be established in all the Centrally Sponsored and Central Sector Schemes
within a stipulated time period. They also recommend that to begin with the
Ministry of Panchayati Raj should first of all clearly demarcate the role of
each tier of Panchayats in all the schemes being administered by them within
a month.

Reply of the Government

The directions given by the Committee have been noted for compliance.
In fact, MoPR has already requested Cabinet Secretariat to revive the Review
Committee, which may have dialogue with the Ministries/Departments
administering CSSs/ACAs. The Committee will be apprised of further action
taken in this regard.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

Recommendation (Serial No. 14, Paragraph No. 4.62)

The Committee are concerned to note that the Ministry of Panchayati

Raj has received complaints that spouses or male relatives of Elected Women
Representatives act as de-facto Pradhans/Pramukhs and also interfere in the
functioning of the PRIs. The Committee apprehend that such instances may
not be only limited to the Women Representatives but also to the weak
Pradhans/Pramukhs of the Gram Panchayats. They note that the Ministry has
issued only two circulars so far, to the effect that the relatives of Women
Representatives may not attend Panchayat meetings by proxy. However, no
concrete action has been taken by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj so far in
this regard. The Committee urge that the desired initiatives may be taken in
this matter.

32
 Reply of the Government

Steps are being taken to encourage Elected Women Representatives

(EWRs) for active participation in the Panchayats Meeting through
Awareness Generation. State Governments have also been requested vide our
communication No.H-11016/2/2010-RBH dated 16th July, 2010
(copy enclosed at Annex-7) to take effective measures to curb proxy
attendance by the relatives and encourage the Women Representatives and
other Weaker Sections for their active participation.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

Recommendation (Serial No. 15, Paragraph No. 4.63)

The Committee are concerned to note that the Ministry of

Panchayati Raj is not giving due importance to the Women’s Empowerment
as is evident from the reply that the performance of the Panchayat Mahila
Evam Yuva Shakti Abhiyan (PMEYSA) scheme is not that successful so far.
Even, though as per the reply, the PMEYSA is being implemented in
25 States/Union territories, the Ministry is considering to modify the scheme
due to its non-satisfactory performance. The Committee, therefore, urge the
Ministry to find out the reasons as to why the PMEYSA has not been
successful so far, take suitable measures on their findings, consult
the Panchayats at the three levels before venturing on modifying the said
scheme.

Reply of the Government

It is stated that the consultations had been held with the concerned
representatives of States/UTs about the various aspects of the implementation
of Panchayat Mahila Evam Yuva Shakti Abhiyan (PMEYSA) inter-alia the
bottlenecks that impede the smooth implementation of this programme in
achieving the desired results. Various measures are under consideration
including the review of the issues relating to the women empowerment and
for giving a fillip to the capacity building and training of elected women
representatives.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

33
 Recommendation (Serial No. 16, Paragraph No. 4.78)

The Committee are concerned to note the reply furnished by the

Ministry of Panchayati Raj that as on date the Ministry do not have the
information on the utilisation of funds recommended by the Tenth
(1995-2000) and Eleventh (2000-2005) Finance Commissions. They further
note that Rs. 18610.89 crore has reportedly been released out of the
Rs. 20,000 crore grant as recommended by the Twelfth Finance Commission
(2005-2010) against which the States have furnished utilisation certificate of
Rs. 14588.50 crore. The Committee find that as per the existing practice the
Ministry of Finance releases the funds, while the role of Ministry of
Panchayati Raj is confined to monitoring the funds recommended by different
Finance Commissions. The Committee in this regard desire that as far as
practicable one nodal Ministry may be entrusted with the task of releasing,
implementing as well as monitoring the grants recommended by the Finance
Commissions.

Reply of the Government

Ministry of Panchayati Raj (MoPR) is in agreement with this

recommendation of the Committee that as far as practicable one nodal
Ministry may be entrusted with the task of releasing, implementing as well
as monitoring the grants recommended by the Finance Commission. In this
regard, MoPR is of the view that as the Central Finance Commission grants
are special purpose grants (as distinct from the general purpose grants), these
should be administered by the line Ministry concerned to ensure targeted
deployment of the grants and effective oversight over timely transfer, proper
fund use and expected outcome. In the case of grants to PRIs, MoPR is
suitably placed to handle this responsibility.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

Recommendation (Serial No. 19, Paragraph No. 4.85)

The Committee have been informed that no concurrent evaluation of

any single scheme has yet been initiated by the Ministry in six years of its

34
existence. They feel continuance of implementation of schemes from one plan
to the other without finding out its real impact and benefits through the system
of independent and impartial concurrent evaluation is not a sign of good
governance. They, therefore, recommend that the Ministry should ensure that
each of the schemes being implemented by it is evaluated concurrently during
the Eleventh Five Year Plan itself.

Reply of the Government

This Ministry had requested the Planning Commission to undertake

measurement of the outcomes with reference to the objectives and the
financial expenditure and evaluate the BRGF programme. In early 2009 the
Planning Commission had opined that it would be too early to evaluate the
programme at this stage.

Thereafter, the Ministry had approached the World Bank for under-
taking an independent review cum evaluation of the BRGF. Accordingly a
World Bank Mission was sent to eight key States in July 2009 for evaluating
the implementation of the programme in two districts of each of these States.
The Mission has submitted their report in March 2010. The Ministry has taken
several actions with respect to the recommendations of the Mission and also
forwarded the Report to the States for taking necessary action.

The Ministry has also set up a National Advisory cum

Review Committee (NARC) in May, 2009 under the chairpersonship of
Shri V. Ramachandran, with the following Terms of Reference:

(a) Assess the extent to which objectives of BRGF have been

fulfilled.

(b) Review the quality of programme management at Central, State and

District levels.

(c) Assess the quality of district plans, frequently occurring

deficiencies, aspects of capacity building, planning process, role
of Training support Institutions etc.

(d) Adequacy of monitoring mechanism.

35
 (e) Need for modification in the objective and design of BRGF
including the Block as Unit for BRGF funding.

A copy of the OM No. N-11019/538/2007- Pol.I (Vol.II) dated

26.05.2009, constituting the NARC is at Annex-8. The Committee has
submitted its First report in early July 2010. Recommendations of the
Committee and response of MoPR is at Annex-9.

The Planning Commission have vide their OM No.PEO/16(98)/2010/

TC dated 24.02.2010 (copy enclosed Annex-10) constituted a Consultancy
Evaluation-cum-Monitoring Committee for Evaluation of the BRGF. The
terms of reference of the Committee are as follows:—

(i) To provide guidance on preparation of study design including the

objectives of the study, methodology, instrument of observation
etc.

(ii) To guide in shortlisting institution for outsourcing of the

study.

(iii) To provide guidance on identification and development of

appropriate input, activity, output, outcome and impact indicators
for assessment of the performance of the implementation of the
scheme.

(iv) To ensure the quality of data collection, organization of

the collected data, analysis of the data, drafting of the report,
etc.

This Committee met in July 2010 to discuss the draft TOR for the study.
The institutions/agencies to conduct the evaluation are being identified to
conduct study.

Evaluation of RGSY:

The scheme of Rashtriya Gram Swaraj Yojana (RGSY) was evaluated

by M/s Santek Consultants and M/s Council for Training and Research in
Ecology and Environment (CTREE) in 2007 before its continuation during
the 11th Plan period. M/s Santek Consultants had concluded that training

36
interventions on a sustainable basis are essential to comprehensively build
the capacity of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs). In many Panchayats, the
members have begun to understand the complexities of their responsibilities
thereby regular training will assist them in fulfilling the aspirations of their
constituencies. According to the findings of report the impact of training was
multi-dimensional viz; solving local problems through participatory decision
making, responsive handling of public grievance, equipping participants with
operational skills required for day-to-day performance of functions devolved
to Panchayats, understating the planning and implementation aspects of rural
development programmes more clearly. The training programmes have made
a significant impact in terms of awareness and sensitization over the Elected
Women Representatives. The agency recommended/suggested that Scheme
should not merely be confined to training programmes, but should also
include the components like improving infrastructure at Panchayat level, IT
interventions, monitoring and evaluation of programme. The training strategy
should be a composite mix of various interventions like interactive satellite
training, face to face training, networking, community mobilisation, Panchayati
Raj TV Channel. The first and initial training should be provided to the newly
elected representatives within 2-3 months of their election. Subsequently,
every year there should be a follow up on training of PRIs. Duration of
training for 1-2 days is not sufficient for effective implementation of
programme. Hence, the report recommended 3-4 days of training programme.
It also recommended that the content of training and processes of training
programme should be relevant to the ground reality.

M/s CTREE had submitted State-wise reports. They have also given
some common suggestions for improving the training programme. Some of
these suggestions are:—

• Matters related to village revenue administration should be

discussed emphatically in the course of training to the GP level
elected representatives and functionaries.

• Separate and easy to understand training modules be designed for

illiterate elected representatives, as the expected benefits were not
seen reflected among them.

37
 • Experienced and former Panchayati Raj Representatives should be
involved as trainers in a greater way besides the conventional
trainers.

• The CEO-ZP should be made accountable for the attendance of the

elected members.

• To avoid duplication and overlapping of the training

programmes, a training policy in a well coordinated approach be
structured.

• The training to the PRI elected members and functionaries be

made more need based with more focus on available resource
utilization. For better and cost-effective training of Panchayati Raj,
more efforts be made to utilize mass media for their capacity
building.

• Local NGOs, those having need based infrastructure and network

in the villages may be assigned for generating awareness,
organizing workshops and training at the Panchayat level.

• The training programme for the GP level elected representatives

should not be scheduled or organized during agricultural cultivation
period that vary from region to region in the State.

• The participants other than functionaries should be provided actual

travelling allowance and compensation for days consumed during
training.

Many recommendations of M/s Santek Consultants and M/s CTREE

were incorporated during framing of guidelines of RGSY Scheme in the first
year of 11th Five Year Plan. The duration of training programme has been
kept for a period of 03 days of elected representatives of PRIs and 05 days
for Central and State level functionaries. In order to augment the training
infrastructure, this Ministry has provided financial assistance to States for
establishment of distance learning facility via satellite. Further, the financial
assistance was provided to establish training institutes and resource centres
in respect of the Hilly States and States of North East Region. The provision

38
of reimbursing the travel expense on actual Rail/Bus fare was made for the
elected representatives only in the guidelines of RGSY Scheme.

The MoPR has now decided to undertake a fresh evaluation of RGSY

through an expert agency identified by the UNDP under its Capacity
Development for Local Governance (CDLG) Project. The selected agency
(CTRAN) has been assigned the task in July 2010 and expected to complete
the same within 3 months.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

Comments of the Committee

Please see Paragraph No. 25 of Chapter-I of the Report

Recommendation (Serial No. 21, Paragraph No. 5.17)

The Committee also find that the Ministry has not been able to adhere
to the monthly expenditure plan under BRGF since inception of the scheme
in 2005-06. They apprehend that this might have been one of the reasons for
the reduction in the revised estimates for the BRGF over that of the budget
estimates during the preceding years. They, therefore, recommend that
suitable corrective measures in the implementation of BRGF may be initiated
this year and the Committee may be apprised accordingly.

Reply of the Government

This point is amply covered in the response to Paras 3.9 and 3.16.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

Recommendation (Serial No. 24, Paragraph No. 5.20)

The Committee also recommend that the role of District Planning

Committee (DPC) and the High Power Committee (HPC) should change from
approval of plans under BRGF to preparation, guidance, coordination and
support to the local planning process and strengthening of horizontal
coordination between PRIs and line departments. Further, technical capacity

39
of DPCs may be strengthened. The Ministry may consider empowering the
States to allow PRIs to choose the service that is most useful for them under
the capacity building component.

Reply of the Government

The Ministry has already advised the State Governments on the role the
DPCs and HPCs should perform (a copy of the circular dated 07.10.2009
in this regard is placed at Annex-12).

Regarding strengthening technical capacity of DPCs, the Ministry had

forwarded the list of Technical Support Institutions (TSIs) to the States with
the suggestion to engage them for strengthening capacities of local bodies
and DPCs in Plan preparation and consolidation under the BRGF.

The Planning Commission had proposed to launch a scheme for support

to planning process at the National, State and District levels which will
include strengthening capacities of the DPCs. The Ministry had supported
the proposal of the Planning Commission. However, in April 2010 the
Planning Commission had informed that though there was no budget
allocation for the scheme in 2010-11, yet the scheme would be better handled
by the MoPR. Accordingly the MoPR has submitted an EFC Memorandum
to the Ministry of Finance on 12/08/2010 on the Scheme for Support to
Planning Process at National, State, District and Sub-District Levels.

The Ministry has examined the proposal to transfer a part of the

Capacity Building grants to the ZPs for using it as per their perceived
requirements and found it difficult do so for the following reasons:

(a) The BRGF is an Additional Central Assistance (ACA) to the State

Plans.

(b) State Governments during the review meeting held on 23/04/2010

unanimously opposed (except for Andhra Pradesh) the proposal for
transfer of Capacity Building funds to the Districts by passing the
State Governments.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

40
 Comments of the Committee

(Please see Paragraph No. 28 of Chapter-I of the Report)

Recommendation (Serial No. 27, Paragraph No. 5.35)

The Committee note with concern that only Rs. 85 lakh has been
released by the Ministry during 2009-10 so far out of the budget estimates
of Rs. 3.60 crore for the Panchayat Mahila Evam Yuva Shakti Abhiyan
(PMEYSA) which reflects poor financial achievement of the scheme by the
Ministry in different States and Union territories. They also find that non-
availability of proper training institutes in various parts of the country may
be a hindrance for implementing this scheme. They also note that the Ministry
is not utilizing the services of reputed NGOs and the training institutes of
Government of India. While recommending for retrospection by the Ministry
for better implementation of this scheme, the Committee recommend that the
Ministry may consider involving reputed training institutes of Government
of India like the National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child
Development (NIPCCD) and reputed NGOs in different States for training
the functionaries and office bearers of different Panchayati Raj Institutions.

Reply of the Government

The actual expenditure under the scheme of PMEYSA during the year
2009-10 is Rs. 2.40 crore. The performance of the scheme was reviewed
by the Secretary, Panchayati Raj in a meeting held on 10.3.2010 with the
representatives of State Governments, Conveners PMEYSA and Nodal
Agencies and communications have been issued to them for taking suitable
action on various aspects of PMEYSA including the Capacity Building and
training of Elected Women Representatives (EWRs).

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

Recommendation (Serial No. 28, Paragraph No. 5.48)

The Committee note with concern that during 2009-10 the utilisation
of funds meant for the training and capacity building component of the

41
Rashtriya Gram Swaraj Yojana (RGSY) has not been satisfactory as they were
informed that only 69 per cent of the funds have been released under the
Yojana so far and only 1.37 lakh elected representatives and functionaries
of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) have been trained by States and NGOs
upto 31 December, 2009 i.e. 14.29 per cent of the physical targets for
providing training to Elected Representatives and officials has been achieved
till December, 2009. The Committee feel that even though there is a larger
need for training and capacity building the Ministry has not been able to
successfully release the funds to the implementing agencies at the first
instance, resulting in poor financial achievement. The Committee, therefore,
recommend that suitable corrective measures for better performance of the
scheme may be initiated and the Committee be apprised accordingly.

Reply of the Government

During 2009-10 the BE of Rs. 45 crore was slightly reduced due to

internal re-appropriation. The RE of Rs. 44.23 crore was fully released to
the Implementing Agencies.

The figures for numbers of ERs of PRIs trained are provided by the
Implementing Agencies generally with a time lag since training programmes
are conducted in most of the States in decentralized manner at various levels.
The Ministry has sought to correct this practice by introducing a system of
online reporting of progress wherein the data regarding Physical/Financial
progress of the scheme would be uploaded by the Implementing Agencies
themselves which would be available to the Ministry for monitoring as well
as to general public for viewing. The system has been started but would take
some time for stabilizing.

Efforts are also being made to make the system of release of funds
to the Implementing Agencies more effective. During 2010-11, as on
18-08-2010, Rs. 27.05 crore, i.e. 54.11% of the allocation has been released,
out of which Rs. 18.30 crore is under Training Component and Rs. 8.75 crore
is under Infrastructure Development Component.

During 2009-10, 2.94 lakh Elected Representatives and

51000 Functionaries of PRIs have been provided training by the States/UTs

42
as per the report received in respect of 28 States and 2 UTs. During current
year, 42253 Elected Representatives have been trained upto July, 2010 as
reported by 12 States. Information is being collected from all the States.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

Recommendation (Serial No. 29, Paragraph No. 5.49)

In so far as performance of the infrastructure development component

of RGSY is concerned, the Committee have found from the reply that
Rs. 5 crore only was provided for betterment of infrastructure development
during 2009-10 which has reportedly been fully utilized. The Committee feel
that this amount is too meagre for this important component of the RGSY
and recommend that it should be substantially increased.

Reply of the Government

The allocation for Infrastructure Development Component has been

raised from Rs. 5 crore in 2009-10 to Rs. 10 crore in 2010-11. The matter
would be taken up again with the Planning Commission while sending
proposals for Annual Plan 2011-12.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

Recommendation (Serial No. 30, Paragraph No. 5.50)

The Committee note the reply of the Ministry that only seven States
have been covered under RGSY and no gender specific data is being
maintained for this scheme. The Committee recommend that gender specific
information of beneficiaries in each of the States and Union territories along
with the information on beneficiaries of the weaker sections may be given
in the next Outcome Budget of the Ministry.

Reply of the Government

During the year 2009-10, RGSY funds were released to 16 States as

per details at Annexure-13. The Ministry had requested all the States to

43
compile gender specific information of beneficiaries as also information on
beneficiaries of weaker sections. As on 12.08.2010, it has been reported by
9 States that 10794 numbers of Women ERs and 17195 ERs from weaker
sections (SC/ST/OBC) have been covered in the training programmes.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

Recommendation (Serial No. 31, Paragraph No. 5.55)

The Committee note with concern poor financial performance of the

Action Research and Research Studies during 2009-10 in which they
were informed that the financial achievement under the scheme was only
17.04 per cent. They also note that no specific physical targets are fixed under
the scheme. The Committee find that out of 19 identified themes, the Ministry
has sanctioned 11 studies whereas 5 themes have been deferred and another
2 studies have been dropped. This proves that all is not well with
implementation of Action Research and Research Studies. The Committee,
therefore, urge the Ministry to initiate suitable corrective measures for better
implementation of scheme during 2010-11.

Reply of the Government

The scheme is formulated to guide the Ministry in formulation of

appropriate policies as also to identify and remove the gaps in the effective
implementation of the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution. The objective
of the Action Research and Research Studies is primarily to provide financial
support for proposals that aim at in-depth analysis of long-term issues,
impacts and experiences in Panchayati Raj across the country and evaluate
the programmes implemented by the PRIs in the States.

During the year 2009-10, out of the 19 themes identified, studies

on 14 themes have been sanctioned to various research organizations/
institutions, two themes have been dropped since the Ministry has already
got the information and data. Three themes have been deferred as it was found
that the objectives of the said themes were more or less on the same lines
as to the ToRs of two studies sanctioned in the past. Therefore, it was decided

44
that before a decision is taken on the said three themes, the Ministry should
wait and request the concerned organization to submit the report in order to
avoid the duplication of work. In addition to these 19 themes, 4 more studies
were sanctioned based on the needs of the concerned divisions of this
Ministry.

So far financial achievement is concerned, out of Rs. 1.75 crores (R.E.)

for the year 2009-10, an amount of Rs. 1.61 crores were spent, which is about
92 per cent.

During the current financial year, Ministry is in the process of

identifying new themes based on the requirements of the Ministry.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

45
 CHAPTER III

RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH THE COMMITTEE DO

NOT DESIRE TO PURSUE IN VIEW OF THE
GOVERNMENT’S REPLIES

Recommendation (Serial No. 17, Paragraph No. 4.79)

The Committee note that the report of the Thirteenth Finance

Commission (2010-15) has since been submitted to the President of India and
the same is under consideration for implementation. They also note the reply
that the recommendations made by the State Finance Commissions play an
important role in the award of the Central Finance Commission for
augmentation of resources of the PRIs. The Committee also note that as
on date no final decision regarding implementation of the recommendations
of the Thirteenth Finance Commission has been made. They urge the
Government to initiate measures for implementation of the said
recommendations of the Finance Commission immediately. Further they also
desire that the Government should find out ways and means for more effective
utilisation of recommendations made by the different State Finance
Commissions.

Reply of the Government

Based on the Cabinet approval, the Ministry of Finance has already

issued an Explanatory Memorandum/Action Taken Report on 25th February,
2010 regarding the acceptance of the recommendations of the 13th Finance
Commission. A letter dated 14th May, 2010 from Secretary, Panchayati Raj
has already been issued to the Chief Secretaries of all States for taking
preparatory action on the implementation of the recommendations of the
13th FC and particularly operationalisation of the conditions prescribed for
drawl of the Performance Grant Component as well as other measures
suggested by the 13th FC for strengthening the local bodies framework.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

46
 Recommendation (Serial No. 20, Paragraph No. 5.16)

The Committee are concerned to note that the financial achievement

of the BRGF has been reduced from 99.99 per cent in 2008-09 to
88.28 per cent in 2009-10. The fact that no physical targets are fixed under
the scheme and expenditure is not up to the mark as admitted by the Secretary,
gives the impression that the BRGF being implemented in 250 districts of
27 different States is losing its momentum. Non-fixing of physical targets year
after year have resulted in improper assessment of the scheme. The
Committee are also constrained to note that the capacity building component
of the BRGF has not been used properly in almost all the States and there
is no linkage between the funds given at the National Level, State Level and
the Zila Parisad Level. The Committee, therefore, strongly recommend that
the Ministry of Panchayati Raj should find ways and means to have a linkage
for capacity building at all these levels and fix some physical targets for the
scheme and the objectives of the Programme may be suitably restructured
to show a clear logical framework (from inputs to impacts) with specific
results, indicators and progress measures so that BRGF can be assessed
properly.

Reply of the Government

There was 100% achievement against the budgetary allocation

(RE Stage) in 2009-10 as well, by 31.03.2010. BRGF is intended mainly to
provide untied grant to the local bodies. Since the BRGF Programme
envisages preparation of plans by local bodies, integration of local plans into
District Plans by the DPCs and final approval of the District Plan by the State
High Powered Committee, fixing of physical targets for implementation by
the Ministry will be against the spirit of decentralization and participatory
planning. The Ministry has set annual targets for itself towards receiving,
processing and consequently releasing funds against 250 District Plans from
all the BRGF districts and 27 capacity building plans. Monitoring the
performance of about 1 lakh Planning Units at the local body level vis-à-vis
targets fixed by them would be a difficult proposition for the Ministry at
current stage. The Ministry has, therefore, developed a web-based monitoring
system on Plan Plus whereby the performance of planning units could be
assessed online against the targets fixed in their respective Plans.

47
 Under the capacity building component of BRGF, the Ministry releases
funds to the States who in turn transfer the same to the nodal agencies
(usually, the SIRDs) for implementation of training programmes and
provision of training infrastructure. The Ministry had earlier set the target
of covering all the elected representatives of PRIs for at least one training
course during their five year tenure. For 2010-11 MoPR has advised the
States to provide at least one training of 3 days duration to each elected
representatives of the PRIs. The Ministry in this regard has also advised the
States for availing/pooling resources available under various schemes such
as the Capacity Building Component of BRGF, Rashtriya Gram Swaraj
Yojana (RGSY), MGNREGS, etc.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

Recommendation (Serial No. 22, Paragraph No. 5.18)

The Committee also observe that one of the reasons for slower
implementation of the programme as admitted by the Ministry is delayed
transfer of funds from the State Governments to the implementing entities,
e.g. Panchayats. They also note that the Ministry has invoked provision of
charging penal interest from the State Governments for cases of delayed
transfer of Grants from States to the Panchayats. The Committee find that
the Ministry of Panchayati Raj has not fixed responsibility themselves for
delay in releasing of grants.

Reply of the Government

The Ministry of Panchayati Raj has fixed target of 15 days to complete

the processing of proposals received from the State Governments complete
in all respects and has been observing these norms.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

Recommendation (Serial No. 23, Paragraph No. 5.19)

The Committee also note that at present the Ministry displays district-
wise entitlement under BRGF in advance whereas the State Governments
have been given the task to inform the Panchayati Raj Institutions about their

48
entitlement during the financial year. They also note that as per the guidelines
of the scheme the State Government should indicate the normative formula
for the allocation of BRGF funds to each PRIs. The Committee find that this
is not being done in most of the cases rendering the system to be ineffective
from the point of view of the Panchayats. They are of the opinion that Ministry
of Panchayati Raj can obtain the normative formula from the respective State
Governments and place the allocation of each Panchayat on their website at
the beginning of the financial year. Action taken in this regard may please
be intimated to the Committee at the earliest.

Reply of the Government

The formula accepted by the various States for inter se allocation

of the BRGF funds among the local bodies, is given in tabular form in
Annexure-11.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No.G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

49
 CHAPTER IV

RECOMMENDATIONS IN RESPECT OF WHICH REPLIES

OF THE GOVERNMENT HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED
BY THE COMMITTEE

Recommendation (Serial No. 12, Paragraph No. 4.50)

The Committee note that the Capacity Building and Training of Elected
Representatives is one of the important aspects of the Panchayati Raj system
in the country. They are surprised to find that the Ministry of Panchayati Raj
do not have information even about the number of Panchayat Ghar buildings
in the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Meghalaya, Mizoram,
Nagaland, Uttarakhand and in all Union territories of the country except Delhi
and Chandigarh as on date. The Committee also cannot understand how in
the absence of such basic information as also information regarding
availability of electricity in the Panchayat Ghar/Office/Bhawans, the Ministry
ambitiously plans for computer connectivity to Panchayats. The Committee,
therefore, recommend that the Ministry should obtain the latest information
regarding number of Panchayat Ghars in all States and Union territories and
inform them accordingly. The Ministry may also in consultation with other
Ministries draw up a Plan under which Panchayat Ghars for all the Panchayats
can be constructed by pooling resources of different Centrally Sponsored and
Central Sector Schemes together in a time bound manner. In view of the
proposed 50 per cent reservation to women in Panchayati Raj Institutions at
three levels and the fact that such reservation for women has already been
made in States like Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Madhya
Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttarakhand, it should also be ensured that the
Panchayat Ghars have the provision for office space and basic amenities like
toilets etc.

Reply of the Government

Ministry has been encouraging the State Governments to give priority

for the construction of Panchayat Ghars availing funds from the various

50
available sources including MGNREGS, BRGF and RGSY. A circular dated
21st January, 2010 has been issued in this regard (copy at Annexure-6).
MoRD has also included construction of Panchayat Ghars as eligible item
of work under the MGNREGS.

[Ministry of Panchayati Raj, OM No. G-20012/3/2010-B&F,

dated 22.9.2010]

Comments of the Committee

(Please see Paragraph No. 16 of Chapter-I of the Report)

51
 CHAPTER V

RECOMMENDATIONS IN RESPECT OF WHICH FINAL REPLIES

OF THE GOVERNMENT ARE STILL AWAITED

Recommendation (Serial No. 5, Paragraph No. 4.5)

The Committee note with concern that the Ministry of Panchayati Raj
does not have requisite information regarding holding of four Gram Sabha
meetings in a year or holding of Mahila Sabha and Ward Sabha meetings in
the different States and Union Territories across the country. Maharashtra is
the only State which has reported organizing Mahila Sabha meetings before
Gram Sabha meeting. Information in this respect is yet to be collected from
other States/Union Territories. The Committee feel that by merely circulating
a circular on 2.10.2009 regarding holding of the regular Gram Sabha
meetings and declaring 2009-10 as the ‘Year of Gram Sabha’ does not
complete the enormous task entrusted to the Ministry of Panchayati Raj.
The Committee, therefore, urge the Ministry to find out the details of
holding of Gram Sabha, Mahila Sabha and Ward Sabha meetings in all
States and Union Territories without any further delay. They also desire the
Ministry to circulate a model format regarding conduct of Gram Sabha
meetings to each Gram Panchayat in the country and inform the Committee
accordingly.

Reply of the Government

The States and UTs were sensitized vide circulars dated 2.10.2009 about
the importance of activating Gram Sabhas, Mahila Sabhas, Ward Sabhas etc.
It was also indicated that the good practices that provide for people’s
assemblies below the Gram Sabha such as Ward Sabhas, Mahila Sabhas and
Bal Sabhas should be promoted and the Ward Sabhas etc. need to meet before
the Gram Sabha meetings. In this context “Monitoring Format for Gram
Sabhas” was also circulated to the States/UTs in which General Information
about the Village Panchayat and also the details about functioning, meetings
etc., of Gram Sabha could be incorporated. To ascertain the position about

52
the activities undertaken by the States/UTs in this behalf, all States/UTs have
been requested to intimate the position and also indicate the reasons for not
holding the meetings of the Mahila Sabhas before the meeting of the Gram
Sabhas in the concerned cases.

Comments of the Committee

(Please see Paragraph No. 10 of Chapter-I of the Report)

Recommendation (Serial No. 9, Paragraph No. 4.36)

It is quite surprising to find that the Ministry of Panchayati Raj do not

have information on the exact number of District Panchayats in the country
as on date. The Committee note with concern that 619 different rural districts
have only 543 District Panchayats. In this age of super connectivity and
information technology, the Ministry of Panchayati Raj is still maintaining
the information in this regard which was last collected during 2007-08. While
expressing their dissatisfaction over the way in which the Ministry of
Panchayati Raj is maintaining the information on number of District
Panchayats, Intermediate Panchayats, Village Panchayats and number of
villages in the country, the Committee, strongly recommend that the Ministry
should always maintain the updated information in this regard with them.

Reply of the Government

All the States/UTs were requested to furnish information regarding

‘details of rural districts that do not have District Panchayats’ vide our letter
dated 25.03.2010. Four subsequent reminders dated 30.03.2010, 26.04.2010,
01.06.2010 and 15.7.2010 also have been sent requesting to furnish the
requisite information immediately.

In this regard, requisite information has been received only from 18 out
of 25 States and 5 out of 6 UTs so far. Details from the remaining 7 States
(Assam, Gujarat, Jammu & Kashmir, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Goa)
and 1 UT (Dadra & Nagar Haveli) are yet to be received.

A consolidated statement in respect of 18 States and 5 UTs is enclosed

as at Annexure-5. We are pursuing with the defaulting 7 States and one UT
to provide the relevant information and the same will be provided
immediately after receipt of the requisite information from them.

53
 The Ministry of Panchayati Raj has developed an online facility viz.
National Panchayat Directory, which is part of National Panchayat Portal,
where States can feed and update the information (such as name, parent local
body, constituent villages etc.) relating to Panchayats at different tiers. With
a view to ensure availability of updated information, an advisory has also been
issued to States/UTs for online uploading of the latest information on this
online directory.

Comments of the Committee

(Please see Paragraph No. 13 of Chapter-I of the Report)

Recommendation (Serial No. 13, Paragraph No. 4.54)

The Committee observe that the Ministry of Panchayati Raj do not have
information on constitution and functioning of Ward Sabhas and Mahila
Sabhas in different Panchayats. They also note that except in Jharkhand,
Pudducherry and Tripura, Standing Committees of Gram Panchayats are
reportedly constituted. The Committee find that only in Maharashtra,
Mahila Sabhas precede the Gram Sabha meetings. Therefore, the reason for
not holding the Mahila Sabha meeting before the Gram Sabha may be
obtained from the States other than Maharashtra and all Union Territories
expeditiously and the Committee be informed accordingly. The Committee
would like the Ministry to collect the detailed information immediately as
is the case in each State and Union Territory and inform them accordingly.

Reply of the Government

The States and UTs were sensitized vide circulars dated 2.10.2009 about
the importance of activating Gram Sabhas, Mahila Sabhas, Ward Sabhas etc.
It was also indicated that the good practices that provide for people’s
assemblies below the Gram Sabha such as Ward Sabhas, Mahila Sabhas and
Bal Sabhas should be promoted and the Ward Sabhas etc., need to meet before
the Gram Sabha meetings. In this context “Monitoring Format for Gram
Sabhas” was also circulated to the States/UTs in which General Information
about the Village Panchayat and also the details about functioning, meetings
etc., of Gram Sabha could be incorporated. To ascertain the position about
the activities undertaken by the States/UTs in this behalf all States/UTs have
been requested to intimate the position and also indicate the reasons for not

54
holding the meetings of the Mahila Sabhas before the meeting of the Gram
Sabhas in the concerned cases.

Comments of the Committee

(Please see Paragraph No. 19 of Chapter-I of the Report)

Recommendation (Serial No. 18, Paragraph No. 4.80)

The Committee recommend that Ministry of Panchayati Raj should

impress upon the Ministry of Finance to issue detailed guidelines immediately
regarding allocation and utilisation of funds recommended by the Thirteenth
Finance Commission to the States and Union Territories.

Reply of the Government

Implementation of 13th FC recommendations has commenced from the

fiscal year 2010-11. Pending issue of necessary guidelines on release and
utilization of Grant, Ministry of Finance has already released the first
instalment of Basic Grant for PRIs amounting to Rs. 2821.72 crore. In
addition, an amount of Rs. 79.90 crore has also been released under ‘Special
Area Basic Grant’ for the Schedule V & VI areas and areas where Part IX
and IXA do not apply. Share of Basic Grant has not been released to
Jharkhand and J&K due to non-existence of elected Panchayats in these
States.

Comments of the Committee

(Please see Paragraph No. 22 of Chapter-I of the Report)

Recommendation (Serial No. 25, Paragraph No. 5.26)

The Committee are concerned to note that the financial achievement

of the Rural Business Hub Scheme during 2009-10 was only 32.78 per cent,
whereas during 2008-09 the financial achievement for the scheme was
96 per cent. Further, even though 219 Memoranda of Understanding have
been signed across 20 States during 2009-10 no information on functioning
of any of the Rural Business Hubs (RBHs) could be provided. Therefore, the
Committee cannot but conclude that the performance of RBH is not at all
satisfactory. The Committee have their own doubts as to the time period
within which the Ministry can establish and functionalize the RBH in each
BRGF district of the country.

55
 Reply of the Government

The financial achievement of the scheme of RBH during 2009-10 is

91%. It is further stated that after careful consideration, this Ministry has
taken decision to have the scheme of RBH evaluated by an independent
agency and accordingly after processing the matter as per the prescribed
formalities, the assignment was given to an independent agency. The matter
will be examined inter alia for taking suitable remedial measures with
reference to their report.

Recommendation (Serial No. 26, Paragraph No. 5.27)

The Committee apprehend that the slow progress made in the

implementation of RBH may result in delaying the technical support and
marketing linkages that are much needed for providing and promoting rural
areas and rural enterprises. They also note from the reply of the Ministry that
it has not been fairly successful in getting viable RBH projects so far. The
Committee, therefore, recommend the Ministry to find out the reasons for
this slow progress and initiate necessary corrective steps in the implemen-
tation of the scheme immediately and intimate them accordingly.

Reply of the Government

The financial achievement of the scheme of RBH during 2009-10 is

91%. It is further stated that after careful consideration, this Ministry has
taken decision to have the implementation of the scheme of RBH evaluated
by an agency and accordingly after processing the matter as per the prescribed
formalities, the assignment was given to an independent agency. The matter
will be examined inter alia for taking suitable remedial measures with
reference to their report.

NEW DELHI; SUMITRA MAHAJAN,

25 February, 2011 Chairperson,
6 Phalguna, 1932 (Saka) Standing Committee on Rural Development.

56
 ANNEXURE I

No. N-11019/681/08-Pol.I
Government of India
Ministry of Panchayati Raj

Krishi Bhavan,
New Delhi-110001.
Dated: 19th January, 2009

From: A.N.P. Sinha,

Secretary.

To: Secretaries,
All Ministries/Departments of Government of India.

Subject: Delineation of role and responsibilities of Panchayati Raj

Institutions (PRIs) in CSSs/ACASs.

Sir,

According to Art. 243 of the Constitution, State legislatures are to

inter alia endow Panchayats with such powers and authority as may be
necessary (i) to enable them to function as institutions of Local Self
Government (LSG), (ii) to prepare plans and schemes for economic
development and social justice, and (iii) implement them including those in
relation to 29 matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule (Annexure-I). These
Constitutional provisions have, however, not been used as an effective trigger
to make Panchayats function as institutions of LSG. While most States have
strong Panchayati Raj Acts that purport to devolve extensive powers,
functions and responsibilities on Panchayats, there persists in many States,
weak administrative action in regard to actual transfer of Functions, Funds
and Functionaries (3Fs) to the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs).

2. The Union Government has a critical role to play in the devolution

of 3Fs upon the PRIs, because of its basic responsibilities to ensure
governance in accordance with the Constitutional provisions and also because
of the increasingly large fiscal transfers it makes to the States in the functional
domain of the PRIs, mainly through Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSSs)
and Additional Central Assistance Schemes (ACASs). Every scheme

57
guideline is a potential vehicle to carry the message of strengthening
Panchayats as envisaged by the Constitution and the impact of such signals
cannot be underestimated.

3. Doubts are often expressed about the capacity and accountability

of PRIs. This is a vicious circle since, unless 3Fs are devolved, the PRIs
would not be able to prove their comparative advantage. Empowering
Panchayats, with clear roles and authority assigned to different levels through
activity mapping, is a strong incentive to build capacity and also to get other
pre-requisites for effective performance into place. This is amply proved by
the implementation of NREGA through the Panchayats, which after some
initial difficulties has now stabilized. This Ministry (MoPR) is working at
addressing the overarching elements of capacity for PRIs which include,
inter alia, necessary trained manpower, a simple & robust accounting &
auditing system, providing IT facility & connectivity for all aspects of
e-Governance, seamless transfer of funds and real time tracking of
expenditure, and training elected representatives & official functionaries on
their roles & responsibilities including and especially in implementation &
monitoring of schemes. The memorandum submitted by this Ministry to the
13th Finance Commission, even if partially accepted, would go a long way
in enabling PRIs financially, administratively and otherwise to perform their
functions meaningfully and smoothly.

4. It is widely recognized that most of the schemes exist in silos,

planned and implemented as stand alone schemes, without any horizontal
convergence or vertical integration, resulting in multiple district plans —
unrelated to each other and often mutually conflicting — prepared without
any integrated vision or perspective. The existing mechanism of implemen-
tation is also not very effective, efficient and economical. Ownership,
operation & maintenance of the assets & services that are created, levy of
user charges and such issues remain unresolved.

5. The much needed convergence of related schemes & resources is

possible only through the mechanism of constitutionally mandated decentralised
and holistic planning through LSGs and the District Planning Committees
(DPCs). The Guidelines issued by Planning Commission on August 25, 2006
go a long way in this direction. The Eleventh Plan document also seeks to
substantially empower and use PRIs as the ‘primary means of delivery of

58
essential services that are critical to inclusive growth’ (para 1.147). It details
several steps such as activity mapping, creation of Panchayat sector windows
in the State & Central budgets, and IT enabling of Panchayats as key steps
in this direction.

6. Through his D.O. letter dated November 8, 2004, Cabinet Secretary

had conveyed to all Union Secretaries dealing with CSSs, the
Prime Minister’s directive that they should review their respective schemes
in the light of Article 243(G) read with the Eleventh Schedule with a view
to incorporating in the schemes, the import of the Constitutional provision
in letter and spirit. MoPR was required to be consulted in this exercise and
the same was to be completed within two months. Cabinet Secretary again
reminded the Secretaries in 2005 and 2006. Since progress made by the
Ministries/Departments in this regard was not satisfactory, a Committee was
set up by the Cabinet Secretariat in August, 07 (copy at Annex-II) to review
the existing Guidelines so as to ensure and enhance the centrality of PRIs
in the planning and implementation of CSSs. The report of the Committee
has been furnished to the Ministries concerned. But the progress in the matter
is slow.

7. The departmental CSS and ACAs guidelines have not taken a

consistent approach to institutional structures for implementation. Therefore,
they could be panchayat-friendly, panchayat-parallel, panchayat-ignorant or
panchayat-unfriendly, often depending upon the personal experience of the
designer rather than on the constitutional position in regard to Panchayats.
Quite often, they are ambivalent. While on the one hand they might leave
the engagement of Panchayats optional on the ground that local government
is a State subject, on the other hand, they also might contain rigid
conditionalities such as the setting up of district missions etc., which can turn
the clock back on Panchayati Raj. We also, however, have schemes that have
incentivized States to devolve more powers and responsibilities to the
Panchayats. We believe that if the scheme guidelines follow certain key
principles of devolution of 3Fs to the PRIs, States would follow these in
respect of their own schemes.

8. Any direct and upfront involvement of PRIs in the planning and

implementation of CSSs/ACASs, that is otherwise done through departmental

59
structures, does impact outcomes positively by making interventions more
appropriate, location-responsive and user-friendly. The scheme guidelines,
therefore, need to be modified to (a) provide centrality to PRIs (which would
also enhance the coverage & outreach), and (b) specify roles & functions of
different levels of Government, including the three tiers of the PRIs, through
detailed Activity Mapping.

9. Improperly designed Activity Mapping, however, could leave local

governments both confused and ill equipped to perform functions and open
them to criticism. Activity Mapping implies that subjects are not sought to
be devolved wholesale. Subjects need to be unbundled into activities and
assigned to different levels of government on the basis of clear principles of
public finance and public accountability, and above all, the governance
principles of Subsidiarity, Democratic Decentralisation, and Citizen-Centric-
ity. The result of good activity mapping would be to clearly identify where
competency, authority and accountability lie. Contrary to persisting notions,
there is little gain or loss of power through Activity Mapping. On the contrary,
it helps the key players in understanding their respective roles and
responsibilities clearly. Good activity mapping would permit higher levels of
government to concentrate more on policy making, legislation, system
building, addressing issues of equity & regional imbalance and in more
effectively discharging oversight responsibilities.

10. An indicative model format of Activity Mapping is given at Annex-

III. Once the Activity Mapping is conceptualized, the scheme guidelines need
to address the following aspects:—

(a) Annual action plan of the scheme to flow out from the participatory
& holistic decentralised Plan of the concerned tier.

(b) Every activity assigned to a specific level of Panchayat to be

supported with appropriate authority over functionaries and powers
to handle finances.

(c) Provision of sufficient untied/flexible funds for addressing specific

local needs and also for meeting the additional administrative
expenses of PRIs on account of the scheme.

60
 (d) Specific mode and time line by which funds are transferred, the
entities that handle funds and the system of utilisation report.
Seamless and time bound flow of funds to the expenditure levels
or just-in-time delivery of funds would both require IT for
electronic tagging and tracking of funds.

(e) Specific measures to build competencies at the appropriate level

with training programmes, modalities of training, basic core content
and pedagogy, FAQs, self learning tools, IEC literature etc. 1-2%
of the total funds could be earmarked as non-divertible for the
purpose.

(f) The method by which accountability will be measured and

enforced.

(g) How data on the planning and implementation of the scheme will
be placed in the public domain through suo moto disclosures, its
process and periodicity.

(h) Details of the annual audits and evaluation mechanisms prescribed.

(i) Systems for financial accountability taking care not to violate

specific financial rules and guidelines.

(j) System of performance based rewards for Panchayats, as done in

the case of Rural Sanitation Programme (Nirmal Gram Puraskar).

11. Often, Parallel Bodies (PBs) are created for supposedly speedy
implementation and greater accountability. However, there is little evidence
to show that such PBs have avoided the evils including that of partisan
politics, sharing of spoils, corruption and elite capture. ‘Missions’, in
particular often bypassing mainstream programmes, create disconnect,
duality, and alienation between the existing and the new structures and
functions. In addition, there are issues of continuity beyond the life of CSSs/
ACASs, subsequent operation & maintenance and continued accountability.
PBs usurp the legitimate space of PRIs and demoralize the PRIs by virtue
of their superior resource endowments, though such resources are available
only during the lifetime of schemes. Arguments such as protection of funds
from diversion have now weakened since advances in core banking systems,

61
treasury computerization and connectivity can enable instantaneous, seamless
and just-in-time transfer of funds directly to the implementing PRI.
Expenditures by PRIs can also be monitored on a real time basis thus doing
away with the need for intermediate parallel bodies to manually transfer funds
and collect, pool and analyse data on expenditures. Ministries should,
therefore, rapidly phase out such PBs from their schemes. If necessary, the
technical & professional component of these PBs could be retained as Cells
or Units within the PRIs, for carrying out their technical & professional
functions.

12. In conclusion, it is requested to kindly do the activity mapping

urgently in conformity with the above suggestions, amend scheme guidelines
accordingly and give effect to these from 1.4.09. We are available for
any assistance in the matter. Action taken may be conveyed to us at the
earliest.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(A.N.P. Sinha)

Copy to :

(a) Chief Secretaries, All States/UTs.

(b) Principal Secretaries/Secretaries, Departments of Finance/Planning/

Panchayati Raj, All States/UTs.

62
 Appendix I of Annex-1
1
[ELEVENTH SCHEDULE
(Article 243G)

11. Agriculture, including agricultural extension.

12. Land improvement, implementation of land reforms, land consolidation

and soil conservation.

13. Minor irrigation, water management and watershed development.

14. Animal husbandry, dairying and poultry.

15. Fisheries.

16. Social forestry and farm forestry.

17. Minor forest produce.

18. Small scale industries, including food processing industries.

19. Khadi, village and cottage industries.

10. Rural housing.

11. Drinking water.

12. Fuel and fodder.

13. Roads, culverts, bridges, ferries, waterways and other means of

communication.

14. Rural electrification, including distribution of electricity.

15. Non-conventional energy sources.

16. Poverty alleviation programme.

17. Education, including primary and secondary schools.

18. Technical training and vocational education.

19. Adult and non-formal education.

20. Libraries.

63
21. Cultural activities.

22. Markets and fairs.

23. Health and sanitation, including hospitals, primary health centres and
dispensaries.

24. Family welfare.

25. Women and child development.

26. Social welfare, including welfare of the handicapped and mentally

retarded.

27. Welfare of the weaker sections, and in particular, of the Scheduled

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

28. Public distribution system.

29. Maintenance of community assets.]

1
Added by the Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992, s. 4 (w.e.f. 24.4.1993).

64
 Annexure II of Annex-1

No.503/9/2/2007-CA-IV
CABINET SECRETARIAT
RASHTRAPATI BHAVAN

New Delhi, dated the 8th August, 2007

ORDER
Government has decided to constitute a Committee with the following
composition to review modifications to be made in the existing guidelines
for Centrally Sponsored Schemes to ensure the centrality of Panchayati Raj
Institutions in the planning and implementation:
(i) Secretary (C&PG), Cabinet Secretariat — Co-Chairperson
(ii) Secretary, M/o Panchayati Raj — Co-Chairperson
(iii) Secretary of the Administrative Ministry/Department concerned
with the Centrally Sponsored Scheme.
2. The Committee will review action taken to modify guidelines for
Centrally Sponsored Schemes in the light of Article 243(G) read with the
Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution in pursuance of Cabinet Secretariat’s
D.O. letter No. 563/9/2/2004-CA-IV dated 8.11.2004.
3. This issues in supersession of Order of even number
dated 26th July 2007.
Sd/-
(C.S. Kedar)
Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India
Tel: 23011964
To
Secretary, M/o Panchayati Raj,
Secretary (C&PG), Cabinet Secretariat,

Copy to:—

Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister.

Sd/-
(C.S. Kedar)
Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India
Tel: 23011964

65
 Annexure IIA of Annex-1

MOST IMMEDIATE

CABINET SECRETARY
NEW DELHI

D.O. No. 563/9/2/2004-CA-IV

November 8, 2004

B.K.CHATURVEDI

Dear Secretary,

Prime Minister has directed that all Ministries which are operating
Centrally Sponsored Programmes be requested to review their respective
schemes in the light of Article 243(G) read with Eleventh Schedule with a
view to incorporating in the schemes, the import of constitutional provisions
in letter and spirit. Ministry of Panchayati Raj may also be consulted in
undertaking the exercise. This revised exercise may be completed in the next
two months. Ministries/Departments are requested to strictly adhere to the
time limit in carrying out the review.

2. I shall be grateful if you could take them up expeditiously and send

status report to us.

With regards,

Yours sincerely,

Sd/-
(B.K.Chaturvedi)

Secretary,
Department of

66
 Annexure III of Annex-1

INDICATIVE FORMAT FOR ACTIVITY MAPPING

Broad Specific Activity Central State DPCs Panchayati Raj Institutions ULBs GS/GP SHG ,
function Govt. Govt. District Inter- Village Stg./ CBO,
mediate Comm. etc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

A. Functions

Framing Scheme • Objective, design, Standards

etc.

Planning • Building data base

• Preparation of macro plans

• Preparation of micro plans

• Approval of micro plans

• Consolidation of plans

Asset Creation • Identification of project/

and Operation land/site

67
68
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

• Construction

• Operation and maintenance

• User Charges

• Identification of beneficiaries

• Procurement/Distribution of
assets

Monitoring and • Reporting

Evaluation
• Display of information

• Social audit

• Independent Evaluation

• IEC

B. Functionaries

Oversight over • Selection/Appointment

each category of
functionaries • Training/capacity building
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

• Payment of salary etc.

• Disciplinary control

• Attendance monitoring

• Performance evaluation

C. Funds

Financial approval, • Untied/flexible funds

Accounting and
audit • Financial approval

• Authorization to release

• Reporting of expenditure

• Expenditure review

• Maintenance of accounts

• Quick audit

Abbr.: DPC-District Planning Committee, ULB-Urban Local Body, GS-Gram Sabha, Stg. Comm.-Standing Committee, SHG-Self Help Group,
CBO-Community Based Organisation.

69
 ANNEXURE II

No. N-11011/59/2006-Policy 1(Pt.)

Government of India
Ministry of Panchayati Raj

Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001.

Dated: 1st December, 2009

From: A.N.P. Sinha,

Secretary.

To: Chief Secretaries,

All States/UTs.

Subject: Guidelines for the devolution of Functions, Funds and

Functionaries (3Fs) to the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs)
through Activity Mapping.

Sir,

It may please be recalled that this Ministry had issued a comprehensive

advisory on 19.1.09 (copy enclosed as Annex–I may be seen at Main
Annex-1) to the Union Ministries regarding delineation of role and
responsibilities of the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) in CSSs/ACAs. It
inter-alia elucidated:—

(a) Constitutional provision, relating to the responsibilities of the

PRIs in the planning and implementation of schemes;

(b) Critical role of the CSSs/ACAs in devolution of 3Fs upon the

PRIs (it included an indicative activity matrix);

(c) Comparative advantages of PRIs over the departmental

structures in the planning, implementation and monitoring of
schemes;

(d) PRIs and District Planning Committees (DPCs) as the appropriate

mechanism for convergence of plethora of schemes, pooling of
resources and better outcomes;

(e) Essential features that scheme guidelines should incorporate; and

70
 (f) Disadvantages of creating parallel bodies to the exclusion/dilution
of the role of the PRIs and its Committees.

In fact, these apply to the State Govt. schemes and functions too.

Need for Activity Mapping

2. It may be reiterated that Article 243G read with the Eleventh

Schedule stipulates that States may, by law, endow the Panchayats with such
powers and authority as may be required to enable them to function as
institutions of self-government. Such laws may also endow powers and
responsibilities upon Panchayats for the preparation and implementation of
plans for economic development and social justice including in relation to
the 29 matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule.

3. While across the key sectors, the State Panchayat laws mandate a
role for the Panchayats, in most cases the law is ambiguous enough to allow
for both decentralized and centralized modes of programme/service delivery
to co-exist. The de-facto situation does not match the de-jure situation. In
some cases, where the States have clearly devolved such responsibilities to
the Panchayats, these are either (a) still largely being provided in a top-down
manner through the State civil service machinery or (b) the ability of
Panchayats to deliver these is limited because of the deficient financial and
administrative powers and therefore services continue to fail the citizen.

4. Clarity on the role and responsibilities of the Panchayats of

different tiers is provided by the Activity Mapping which, thus, becomes an
important step in the devolution of functions to the Panchayats. It may be
recalled that a Task Force on the Devolution of 3Fs to the Panchayats had
submitted its report in 2001(available on our website: http//panchayat.nic.in).
Some States had undertaken the Activity Mapping prior to the 2001 report
and some are in the process of reviewing the Activity Mapping done earlier
in the light of considerable changes that have taken place during the
intervening period. The need to carry out a detailed review of the Activity
Mapping and update the same is evident. The State-wise status of the Activity
Mapping, as available with us is at Annexure II. The correct position if
different may be intimated to us.

71
 5. Further, the 2nd ARC in its Sixth Report relating to the Local
Governance, has recommended that there should be a clear cut delineation
of functions for each level of the local governance. This is not a one time
exercise and has to be done continuously while working out locally relevant
socio-economic programmes, restructuring organizations and framing subject
matter laws (Para 3.3.17.a).

Steps in Activity Mapping

6. It may be noted that the Activity Mapping does not imply that the
subjects are devolved wholesale. The Subjects or Sectors need to be
unbundled and assigned to the different levels of Government on the basis
of clear principles of public finance and public accountability, and above all,
the governance principles of Subsidiarity, Democratic Decentralization and
Citizen-Centricity. The result of good Activity Mapping would be to clearly
identify where competence, authority and accountability lie. Good Activity
Mapping would permit higher levels of Government to concentrate more
on policy making, legislation, system building, addressing issues of
equity and regional imbalances and effectively discharging oversight
responsibilities.

7. The first step towards activity mapping is the unbundling of each

sector into services, activities and sub-activities to a level of dis-aggregation
that is consistent with the devolution. For example, Rural Education, Health,
Drinking Water and Sanitation are Sectors. Rural Health would include
services for Immunization, Vector Control, Primary Health Care. Similarly,
Education would include services such as Primary, Secondary and Tertiary
Education and Vocational Training. Services can be further unbundled into
activities. For example—

(a) The key activities in the delivery of drinking water may include
the development of water supply systems, their O&M, and
monitoring of their implementation. The essential sub-activities
may include formulation of specific water supply schemes,
technical appraisal and approval of the scheme, awarding
contract, monitoring and supervision of the progress including
quality control.

72
 (b) The Basic education could be unbundled into activities such as
identifying and recruiting persons with appropriate teaching
skills, monitoring teacher attendance, procuring & maintaining an
inventory of educational materials & equipments, setting up
school buildings with adequate drinking water & sanitation
facilities, repairing & maintaining existing schools and ensuring
an even spread of teachers, wherever necessary.

(c) The Functions in the horticulture sector could be unbundled into

activities such as identifying the most appropriate product in a
given soil and temperature milieu, procurement of seeds with
provision for timely supply, organizing production in nurseries,
technical assistance through functionaries concerned, pest control,
provision of price and marketing information and post-harvesting
support.

8. There is generally a strong case for giving the Gram Panchayats

the responsibilities of asset creation/operation/maintenance, while involving
it in the planning process through the Gram Sabha; giving the middle tiers
responsibilities for human capital development; and giving higher levels of
Government the responsibility of policy, standards and monitoring of
outcomes.

9. The detailed Activity Map prepared by Kerala State (available

on our website: http://panchayat.nic.in ) could be a good reference for the
Activity Mapping. The States could consider adopting this with suitable
modifications taking into account the wide diversity in their size (area &
population), devolution of functions, relationship between the 3 Tiers,
capacity of PRIs, terrain, climate, etc. Along with the activities to be
devolved, some Institutions would have to be transferred to the Panchayats
for maintenance and upkeep. An illustrative list of these Institutions is at
Annex-III. Finally, the Activity Map will need to be issued in the form of
a detailed Government Order (GO).

Transfer of Functions to the PRIs

10. Pursuant to the GO suggested above, each Line Department will

need to issue orders for transfer of specific Schemes, which should be

73
relatable to the individual Heads of Account in the State Budget. Moreover,
since long established codes prescribing technical standards and approval
processes (such as the PWD code), circulars, OMs, transfer orders etc., would
have tendency towards continued implementation of the devolved functions
through the Line Departments, the Departments would need to issue
consolidated revised guidelines for the schemes to be implemented through
the Panchayats. The role and action to be taken by the institutions, officials
and non-officials at different levels should be clearly mentioned in these
guidelines. Moreover, the devolution should not be limited to the planning
and promotional responsibilities but also the implementation. Parallel Bodies
should not be created to implement the subjects devolved to the Panchayats
and the existing ones should either be phased out or made technical units
of the Panchayats for the reasons stated in para 11 of the letter dt. 19.01.2009.

Matching devolution of funds

11. For PRIs to perform the functions assigned to them effectively,

they must be fiscally capable. Accordingly, in conformity with the devolution
of functions, a Panchayat sector window should be opened through the
insertion of an appropriate budget line in the budgets of the relevant Line
departments. This would ensure the flow of funds for undertaking devolved
activities to the appropriate level of Panchayats. This task should best be done
as a part of the Budget exercise. However, it would also be possible to do
this during mid-year with the approval of the State Legislature.

Matching devolution of functionaries

12. Currently, the administrative obligations of the Panchayats are

fulfilled generally through the staff deputed by the State Government. The
Panchayats do not have effective authority over the deputed staff or the
authority to hire, transfer or take disciplinary action. Moreover, devolution
of Functionaries need to be carried out to the appropriate level of the
Panchayats according to the functional devolution. It would be necessary to
create posts in the Panchayats and develop Cadre & Recruitment Rules to
specify the terms and conditions of appointment or deputation, as the case
may be. An illustrative list of functionaries to be devolved to PRIs is at
Annex.-IV (available on our website). Our guidelines dt. 23rd October, 09
on Manpower for the PRI may also be referred to.

74
Role of the Gram Sabha and Committees

13. Realizing the importance of a vibrant Gram Sabha, the first Round
Table of State Panchayati Raj Ministers at Kolkata on 24-25th July, 2004
(Annex.-V), inter-alia, recommended that the Gram Sabhas may be
empowered through entitlement to all the information required for making
the elected Panchayats answerable, approve plans and programmes (including
budgets) prepared by the Gram Panchayats, authorize issuance of Utilization
Certificates and identification of beneficiaries. Gram Sabhas should in fact
be given power and functions in accordance with Art. 243A of the Constitution
to enable them to make the elected Panchayats answerable to the people.

14. Further, the activity matrix annexed with our letter dated 19.1.2009,
while indicating the broad functions along with specific activities under each
function, also gives scope for assignment of activities to the District Planning
Committees, Urban Local Bodies, Gram Sabhas, Standing Committees of the
Gram Panchayat, etc. besides the 3 tiers of PRIs. This format may be used
suitably so as to have a co-relation with the State level Activity Mapping.

Expectation

15. It is expected that the Activity Map and the consequential

executive instructions, prepared in the aforesaid manner, would be an
important trigger for the devolution of 3Fs to PRIs in the letter and spirit of
the Constitution. It would also lead to effective planning, convergence and
implementation of the plethora of Schemes/Programmes of the States and
Central Government for better outcomes. We would be extending all
assistance to the States, if they so wish, in this endeavour. A format for
assessing/reporting progress on the Activity Mapping is available at our
website.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(A.N.P. Sinha)

Copy to: Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj/Finance/Planning/Urban

Development Departments, All States/UTs for follow up please.

75
 Annexure II of Annex-2

76
Devolution of Functions through Legislations and Activity Mapping
(Based on the information furnished by the State Governments and records of the Ministry)
T r a n s fe r o f m a tte r s lis te d in th e E le v e n th S u b je c ts C o v e r e d u n d e r A c tiv ity
S ta te S c h e d u le to th e P a n c h a y a ts th ro u g h M a p p in g / S ta te G o v e rn m e n t C o m m e n ts
L e g is la tio n O r d e rs
Z ila M andal G ra m O n th e S ta te P a n c h a ya ti R a j A c t: T h e A P P a n c h a y a ti R a j A c t h a s e s ta b lish e d th e
ZP MP GP
P a rish a d P a ris h ad P a n c h a ya t P a n c h a ya t s ys te m a s a h ie r a rc h y , w ith th e Z P a t th e to p . T h e r e fo re , a lth o u g h o n ly
1 23 21 o n e c le a r o rig in a l p o w e r re la tin g to a m a tte r lis te d in th e E le v e n th S c h ed u le h a s
1. A n d h ra
b e e n g iv e n to th e Z P (to e s ta b lish , m a in ta in o r e x p a n d se c o n d a r y, v o c a tio n a l a n d
P r ad e s h T h e S ta te a c t a ls o c o n ta in s gen eral
in d u s tria l sc h o o ls ), it h a s a ls o b e e n g iv e n a p p ro v a l, c o o rd in a tio n , p la n n in g a n d
p r o v is io n s th a t e n a b le s it to e n tr u s t 12 10 12 s u p e r v is io n p o w e r s o v e r M a n d a ls a n d p o w e rs to a d v is e th e G o v e r n m e n t.
th ro u g h r u le s , p o w e r s a n d f u n c tio n s
C o m m e n ts o n A c tiv ity M a p p in g : G o v e rn m e n t is su e d 9 O rd e r s b etw e e n J a n u a r y-
r e la tin g to a ll m a tte rs in th e E le v e n th
M a rc h , 2 0 0 8 , d e v o lv in g a c tiv itie s to th e th re e le v e ls o f P an c h a ya ts a s in d ic a te d .
S c h e d u le
Z ila A n c h a lik G ra m T h e S ta te u n d e rto o k a re v ise d a c tiv ity m a p p in g e x e r c is e a n d p u b lish e d it v id e its
ZP AP GP
P a rish a d P a n c h a ya t P a n ch a ya t N o tific a tio n b e a rin g n u m b e r P D A 3 3 6 /2 0 0 1 /P t- II I/3 2 d a te d 2 5 t h J u n e 2 0 0 7 . A s p e r
2. A ssam th is n o tific a tio n , 2 1 fu n c tio n s liste d in th e 1 1 th S c h e d u le h a v e b e e n d e v o lv e d to th e
25 27 28 21 21 21 3 tie r P R Is . I t h a s a ls o m a d e p ro v is io n in th e S ta te B u d g e t to p ro v id e su b sta n tial
fu n d s to P R Is th ro u g h a n e w b u d g e t lin e .
T h e A r u n a c h a l P ra d e s h P a n c h a y a ti R a j A c t, 1 9 9 7 d e v o lv e s a ll th e 2 9 su b je c ts ,
Z ila A nchal G ra m lis te d in th e E le v e n th S ch e d u le , to a tle a st o n e o f th e tie rs o f P a n c h a y a ts in th e
P a rish a d S a m iti P a n ch a ya t S ta te .
3. A r u n a c h a l 29
P r ad e s h 25 28 28 T h e e x e c u tiv e o rd e r fo r d e v o lu tio n o f 2 9 s u b je c ts o f A c tiv ity M a p p in g w a s is su e d
o n 2 1 st O c to b e r , 2 0 0 8 fo r d e v o lu tio n o f 2 9 su b je c ts c o v e rin g 2 0 d ep a rtm e n ts .
T h e r e is o v e rla p o f so m e o f th e fu n c tio n s d e v o lv e d to d iffe re n t tie rs o f P an c h a y a ts .
A s p e r th e B ih a r P a n c h a y a ti R a j A c t, 2 0 0 6 , a ll th e fu n c tio n s o f th e E le v e n th
Z ila P a n c h a ya t G ra m Z ila P a n ch a y a t G ram S c h e d u le h a v e b e e n d e v o lv e d to eith e r o f th e tie rs o f P an c h a y a ts .
P a rish a d S a m iti P a n ch a ya t P a rish a d S a m iti P a n ch a ya t T h e S ta te G o v e rn m e n t h a d is su e d e x e c u tiv e o r d e rs in re s p e c t o f 2 8 m a tte r s a n d
4. B ih a r o n ly th e s u b je c t “ T e c h n ic a l tra in in g a n d v o c a tio n a l e d u c a tio n h a s b e e n e x c lu d e d ” .
25 26 25 23 24 27 T h e S ta te p ro p o s e to r e v is it th e a c tiv ity m a p p in g a im e d a t g re a te r d e v o lu tio n o f
fu n c tio n s, fu n c tio n a r ie s a n d fu n d s to th e P a n c h a ya t.
T h e A c tiv ity M a p p in g h a s b e e n p r e p a r e d fo r 2 7 s u b je c ts e x c lu d in g d rin k in g w a te r
5. C h h a ttis g a r h 27 s u p p ly a n d fo r e sts . T h e e x e c u tiv e o r d e rs w ith re s p e c t to o p e r a tio n a liz in g A c tiv ity
29
M a p p in g a r e y e t to b e is s u ed in C h h a ttisg a rh .

O u t o f 2 9 s u b je c ts to b e d e v o lv e d to P a n c h a ya ts , 6 s u b je c ts h a v e b e e n tr a n s fe r re d
Z ila V illa g e th r o u g h le g is la tio n a n d 1 8 su b je c ts h a v e b e e n c o v e re d u n d e r A c tiv ity M a p p in g .
6. Goa P a n ch a y a t P a n ch a ya t 18 1 8 m a tte rs a r e d e v o lv e d to th e G r a m P a n c h a y a ts w h ile 7 m a tte r s a re d e v o lv e d to
th e Z ila P an c h a y a ts . T h e re is a n o v e r la p in a ss ig n m e n t o f r e sp o n s ib ility b e tw e e n
7 18 th e tw o tie rs .

7. G u ja ra t F o llo w in g th e p ro c es s o f A c tiv ity M ap p in g in G u ja ra t, o u t o f 2 9 m atters listed in th e

15 19 1 1 th S ch e d u le, 1 4 h a v e b e en fu lly tra n sfe rred , 5 m a tte rs h a v e b e e n p a rtia lly tra n s ferre d .
 Zila Panchayat Gram On the State Panchayati Raj Act: The Haryana Panchayati Raj Act has established the
ZP PS GP Panchayat system as a hierarchy, with the ZP at the top. It states, inter alia that ZP shall
Parishad Samiti Panchayat
Only advise, supervise and co-ordinate the functions of the Panchayat Samitis in the district.
8. Haryana On Activity M apping: In February 2006, an activity mapping was released by the Government
advisory,
supervision through which activities of 10 departments, namely, Irrigation, Food and Supplies, Education,
and
27 25 10 9 8 Public Health Department, Women and Child Development, Social Justice and Empowerment,
coordination Health Department, Animal Husbandry, Agriculture, and Forest Department. The ten
powers departments cover ten matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule.

Zila Panchayat Gram On the State Panchayati Raj Act: In respect of ZPs and PSs, the Act gives specific powers to
ZP PS GP
9. Himachal Parishad Samiti Panchayat the General body and its Standing Committees. Both have been reckoned in the overall
Pradesh devolution to the body.
On Activity M apping: A general notification on devolution of functions issued for
17 16 11 22 23 24 15 departments in July, 1996. However, only 8 departments have issued orders in 2001-02.

Zila Intermediate Gram

10. Panchayat Panchayat Panchayat No elections held to Panchayats.
Jharkhand 0
27 27 27

Zila Taluk Gram

Karnataka ZP TP GP Activity Mapping has been completed in accordance with the recommendations of the GOI
11. Panchayat Panchayat Panchayat
task force, in August 2003.
26 27 25 29 29 29

District Block Gram

ZP TP GP Activity M apping (Responsibility mapping) has been incorporated into the law through an
Panchayat Panchayat Panchayat
12. Kerala amendment and matches legislative devolution. The responsibility mapping undertaken is now
being revisited by the State.
21 18 26 21 18 26

Zila Janpad Gram On the State Panchayati Raj Act: The M P Act, apart from devolving powers and
13. Madhya responsibilities to the three Panchayat levels, has also devolved 18 matters to Gram Sabhas.
Parishad Panchayat Panchayat
. Pradesh 25
On Activity M apping: Executive orders have been issued for 25 matters. The State is
7 17 8 revisiting Activity Mapping.

Devolution in M aharashtra is derived from The Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and
The M aharashtra Zila Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. Except the subject
28 28 Non-Conventional Energy Sources, all other subjects of XIth Schedule are broadly covered in
14. M aharashtra these legislations.
It was reported that activities devolved to Panchayats are listed in the legislations itself.

77
78
15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.
 Zila Panchayat Gram The UP Panchayati Raj Act 1947 and The UP Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats
22.
Panchayat Samiti Panchayat Act, 1961 provide for devolution of functions.
Uttar
16
Pradesh
Functions relating to 12 departments have been transferred to Panchayats. Activity
Mapping is still under the consideration of the Government.
29 29 29

The UP Panchayati Raj Act 1947 and The UP Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats
Act, 1961 providing for devolution of functions are applicable in the State as the State
Zila Panchayat Gram legislation on Panchayati Raj is under preparation.
23. Uttara- Panchayat Samiti Panchayat
14
khand The Activity Mapping of 11 departments related to 14 subjects was released in
August 2005. However, the Government has not issued the necessary notifications to
operationalize the Activity Mapping. Cabinet Sub-Committee has been constituted to
consider the Activity Mapping and the outcome is awaited.
29 29 29

Panchayat Gram The State Government has devolved all 29 functions included in the 11th Schedule to
Zila Parishad
24. West Samiti Panchayat the 3 tier PRIs. Activity Mapping has been completed for 28 subjects accepting
18 technical and vocational education. As per orders dated 7.11.05, 25.7.06 and 29.10.07,
Bengal
18 29 28 9 departments have so far issued necessary matching orders. 3 departments have
opened separate Panchayat Window for transferring funds to the PRIs.

79
 Annexure IIA of Annex-2

STATUS OF DEVOLUTION OF FUNCTIONARIES TO

PANCHAYATI RAJ INSTITUTIONS IN
VARIOUS STATES/UTs.

Sl. State Devolution of Functionaries

No.

1 2 3

1. Andhra Pradesh Only General staff given, departmental staff

answer to departments.

2. Assam Activity Mapping Notification issued by the

State provides for devolution of functionaries
matching to the devolution of functions to
Panchayats.

3. Arunachal Pradesh Only skeleton staff given.

4. Bihar Only General staff given, departmental staff

answer to departments.

5. Chhattisgarh Sahayak Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Gram

Panchayat Adhikari, Clerical and Class IV
cadres of Education Tribal Health and 7-8 other
departments declared as dying cadres and new
recruitment to these cadres is undertaken
directly by the Panchayats. Chhattisgarh has
been particularly successful in recruitment of
new Shiksha Karmis at the level of the Janpad
Panchayats. More than 30,000 teachers have
been so recruited into local level cadres.

6. Goa Village Panchayats can appoint employees

other than Secretary or Gram Sevak using
Panchayat funds. In ZPs, CEO and Adhyaksha
of ZP have full control over ZP staff.

80
1 2 3

7. Gujarat 2.2 lakh employees devolved to Panchayats,

mainly on deputation from State Government to
Panchayat level post, covering 11 departments.

8. Haryana Activity mapping of Feb. 2006 devolves staff

through deemed deputation in respect of
3 departments.

9. Himachal Pradesh Staff is with State Government. Panchayats are

appointing authority for 6 types of employees
of group C&D category. In addition, Panchayats
can report on physical attendance in respect of
2 categories of people.

10. Jharkhand No elections held to Panchayats.

11. Karnataka Staff of all departments for which functional

devolution undertaken, devolved to Panchayats
on deputation. GPs can appoint Panchayat staff,
except Panchayat secretary. All transfers within
the district done by Committee headed by CEO
of ZP.

12. Kerala Staff of 14 departments transferred to

Panchayats, with disciplinary control and career
review (through CRs) transferred to them.

13. Madhya Pradesh All Class III village level functionaries

converted into dying cadres and fresh
recruitments undertaken by Panchayats. These
include Panchayat secretaries, primary school
teachers, anganwadi workers etc.

14. Maharashtra All Group III and IV Panchayat level functionaries

to be appointed by Zila Panchayats. New
amendment in 2003 brings all village level
officials under the Village Panchayats.

81
1 2 3

15. Manipur Staff of the Government are posted to

Panchayats and continue under the control and
superintendence of the Government.

16. Orissa Officials of departments are to report to

Panchayats in respect of transferred schemes.
Panchayats do not make any appointments of
their own.

17. Punjab Seven departments propose to delegate powers

of supervision to Panchayats. In Health
department, the powers of outsourcing the
running of PHCs has been devolved to
Panchayats. Recently, in education department,
powers of recruitment of teachers has been
given to Panchayats.

18. Rajasthan Officials of 8 departments placed with

each Panchayat through deputation from
Government.

19. Sikkim Staff on deputation from the Government.

Panchayat secretary elected by the members.
Draft Panchayati Raj service rules prepared by
the State and is under examination by line
departments.

20. Tamil Nadu At GP level, part-time clerks can be appointed

by the Panchayat president. ZPs and
Block Panchayats have no control over line
department staff.

21. Tripura Staff in respect of 21 departments deputed to

Panchayats from the Government, with
Panchayats exercising powers of payment of
salaries, grant of leave, writing of CRs and
disciplinary action.

82
1 2 3

22. Uttar Pradesh GPs have power of verification of attendance

of all village level workers. Village level
functionaries of some departments were trans-
ferred to Gram Panchayats in 1999, but they
were subsequently withdrawn.

23. Uttarakhand In January 2005, executive orders were issued

transferring powers of seeking information and
supervision over employees of 14 departments
to Panchayats.

24. West Bengal EO of the Zila Parishad made appointing

authority for all posts except group D posts at
GP level, for which EO of Panchayat samiti is
the appointing authority. This has been done by
the WB Panchayat Amendment Act 2006. Each
GP has 6 sanctioned posts.

83
 Annexure IIB of Annex-2

STATUS OF DEVOLUTION OF FUNDS TO PANCHAYATI RAJ

INSTITUTIONS IN VARIOUS STATES/UTs.

Name of the State Status of Devolution of Funds

1 2

Andhra Pradesh Grants are being released by State Government

to Panchayats either (a) directly transferred
through the treasury, or (b) transferred by the
GOI directly to the parallel bodies at the district
level. Funds, including State contribution to
Centrally Sponsored Schemes are sent by the
line department concerned into the personal
accounts of the Panchayats either to treasury
accounts or Bank Accounts as the case may be.
TFC grants are also being released to PRIs as
per guidelines.

Arunachal Pradesh The schemes of the Department of Rural

Development i.e. IAY, SGSY, NREGS and Total
Sanitation Programme are implemented through
DRDA. Under NREGS, GPs prepare project
proposals and send them to block level at which
projects are also prepared and combined with
GPs plans and sent to DRDA. The governing
body of DRDA places these project proposals
before Zilla Parishad after approval. DRDA is
concerned with monitoring of the scheme.

Assam Funds of schemes such as MPLAD, Member

of Legislative Assembly Constituency
Development, Self Sufficiency Scheme and
Central Rural Sanitation Procaine Schemes,
implemented through Anchalik Panchayats.
Development grants under various Government

84
 1 2

sponsored programmes implemented through

Gaon Panchayats. TFC grants are also being
released to PRIs as per guidelines.

Bihar The funds of Centrally sponsored schemes like

the NREGS are transferred to Panchayats as per
instruction of the Schemes. 50% of the total
fund is made available to the GP, 30% to
Panchayat Samities and 20% to Zilla Parishad.
TFC grants are also being released to PRIs as
per guidelines.

Chhattisgarh The allocations of funds are based on the 1998

order by which each department whose
functions are devolved, have been earmarking
schemes relating to these functions and
devolved funds relating to these schemes into
the concerned budget head. The funds of
Rs.103674.61 millions for 12 departments have
been earmarked for the year 2008-09.

Goa Matching grants linked to tax collection, grants

in lieu of octroi, salary/establishment grants,
grants to weaker Panchayats for strengthening
administration, grant-in-aid for rural infrastruc-
ture, DRDA grants, Centrally sponsored schemes
grants are devolved to PRIs. TFC grants are
also being released to PRIs as per guidelines.

Gujarat The funds pertaining to functions devolved are

being transferred to PRIs. In all, Panchayats
were devolved Rs. 2880.40 crore, which also
include Rs. 293 Crore of additional devolution
consequent to the State Finance Commission’s
recommendation. TFC grants are also being
released to PRIs as per guidelines.

85
 1 2

Haryana The funds pertaining to functions devolved to

PRIs, Centrally Sponsored Schemes i.e. DDP
and IWDP are being transferred to PRIs. TFC
grants are also being released through banking
channels to PRIs as per guidelines.

Himachal Pradesh The funds pertaining to Centrally Sponsored

Schemes and Member of Legislative Assembly
Constituency Development fund are being
released to PRIs. TFC grants are also being
released to GP, PS & ZP in the ratio of 75:15:10
on the basis of per capita population as per
guidelines.

Jammu and Kashmir TFC grants is being released to PRIs as per

recommendation of Finance Commission. Funds
under SGRY are being earmarked to the extent
of 50% of the total availability of individual
Panchayats. The State Government has been
contributing matching share under various
Centrally Sponsored Schemes like IAY, SGSY,
NREGA, IWDP & DPAP, where consequently
the schemes are being implemented through
PRIs.

Jharkhand Panchayat elections have not been held in the

State due to court case pending in Supreme
Court. However, it is reported that there is a
strong system of traditional Panchayats
functioning in other areas in the form of
Manki-Munda and the Parha system. During
2005-06, the State Government decided to allot
Rs. 50,000/- each to the traditional Panchayats.
In the absence of elected Panchayats, the issue
of sending of untied funds to Panchayats does

86
 1 2

not arise. TFC grants are not being given to

Panchayats, as election to Panchayats have not
been held.

Karnataka The funds pertaining to functions devolved to

PRIs, Centrally Sponsored Schemes i.e. NREGA
and other Centrally Sponsored Schemes are
being transferred to PRIs. TFC grants are also
being released through banking channels to
PRIs as per guidelines.

Kerala The State initiatives of devolving Funds to

Local Self Government Institutions (LSGI)
are a significant initiative towards fiscal
decentralization. The untied funds allocated
under three main categories are Development
expenditure, Maintenance of assets and
Traditional Functions to LSGI. Development
funds are released in 10 equal installments on
the first working day of the month from May
to February Funds for implementing Centrally
Sponsored Schemes i.e. PMGSY, Rural Health
Mission, Sarva Sikksha Abhiyan, Rashtriya
Krishi Vikas Yojana, NREGA and TFC grants
are also being released to PRIs.

Madhya Pradesh The funds pertaining to functions devolved are

being transferred to PRIs. The funds under
Centrally Sponsored Schemes i.e. NREGA,
mid-day meal, old age pension, Indira Awas
Yojna etc. are being released to PRIs directly and
all such programmes have a direct accountability
of the Sarpanch. DRDA continue to exist as
separate and distinct bodies with the President
of Zila Parishad as its Chairman. Funds

87
 1 2

pertaining to rural development programmes are

channelised through the DRDA. The schemes
like SGSY, IAY, PSYSVBY and SSPY are
being handled by DRDA. TFC grants are also
being directly transferred to PRIs through
Electronic Clearing system wherever possible.

Maharashtra The funds pertaining to function devolved to

PRIs, Centrally Sponsored Schemes and TFC
grants are being released to PRIs.

Manipur The funds pertaining to functions devolved to

PRIs, development schemes like Mahila Shakthi
Abhiyan, Hariyali Scheme etc. and NREGA
and TFC grants are also being released to PRIs
as per guidelines.

Orissa The funds pertaining to functions devolved to

PRIs, State Plan Schemes (for development of
rural poor, unemployed youth and accommo-
date to poor people through Rural Housing
Programme), Centrally Sponsored Plan Schemes
(NREGA etc.), Central Plan Schemes (IYA etc.)
and TFC grants are also being released to PRIs
as per guidelines.

Punjab The funds pertaining to functions devolved to

PRIs, Centrally Sponsored Schemes, Gram
Panchayat have little or no control and
independence in utilization of their funds
because lack of control over function and
functionaries at Gram Panchayat level. Gram
Panchayat simply follow the instructions from
Block Development Officer and Panchayat
Officer. TFC grants are also being released to
PRIs as per guidelines.

88
 1 2

Rajasthan The funds pertaining to function devolved to

PRIs, and Centrally Sponsored Schemes and
State grants are being released to PRIs. TFC
grants are also being released through banking
channels to PRIs as per guidelines.

Sikkim Budget of Rs. 1818 lakh were earmarked to

Panchayats in 18 departments during the
2007-08. Each Gram Panchayat and Zilla
Panchayat receives the untied block grant of
Rs. 10 lakh and Rs. 60 lakh respectively. The
State has secured only 1st installment of
Rs. 1.30 crore for the year 2005-06. High Level
Committee constituted as per guidelines of
Finance Commission has approved to utilize
the grant i.e. 20 lakh for creation of Data base,
Rs. 10 lakh for maintenance of Accounts of
PRIs and Rs. 1270 lakh for O&M cost for civic
services.

Tamil Nadu The funds pertaining to function devolved to

PRIs are being released. To ensure adequate
fund to weaker Village Panchayats, State
Government has proposed to allocate a
minimum grants of Rs. 3 lakh to each Village
Panchayat. The Panchayat Union Council can
sanction and executive works up to Rs. 10 lakh
from their general funds without any external
approvals. However, for Centrally Sponsored
and State Schemes, prior administrative
approval of DC is necessary. TFC grants are
also being released to PRIs as per guidelines.

Tripura Devolution of funds of line departments, only

part funds relating to Lift Irrigation Scheme of

89
 1 2

the PWD (Water Resource) Deptt. have been

transferred to PRIs. Some funds of Primary
Schools of the School Education Deptt., Social
Welfare and Social Education Deptt. and
Pension funds were being transferred to PRIs.
Untied funds are renamed as Panchayat
Development Fund and are transferred to three
tier PRIs in the ratio of 20:30:50. DRDAs
implement the programmes of the Ministry of
RD and CSS after the approval of Gram
Panchayats. The State has secured only
1st installment of Rs. 5.70 crore for the
year 2005-06 of TFC grants. TFC grants are
also being transferred to PRIs similarly to
Panchayat Development Funds.

Uttar Pradesh The funds pertaining to function devolved to

PRIs, Centrally Sponsored Schemes and State
grants are being released to PRIs. TFC grants
are also being released to PRIs as per
guidelines.

Uttarakhand The funds pertaining to minor irrigation and

watershed departments have completely been
devolved to PRIs. Untied funds are being given
to Gram Panchayats, Keshetra Panchayats and
Zilla Panchayats. TFC grants are also being
released to PRIs as per guidelines.

West Bengal The State Government provides financial

support to the Panchayat bodies to discharge
the responsibilities entrusted upon them. Funds
are provided by the State Government for
meeting establishment cost including salary and
pension of the employees of Panchayat bodies

90
 1 2

and honorarium or remuneration and traveling

allowance of elected functionaries. The other
major source of fund available to the Panchayats
is those, which are released by the Centre and
State Government for implementation of
various Programmes/Schemes. TFC grants are
being released to Gram Panchayats, Panchayat
Samitis and Zilla Parishad in ratio of 60:20:20.

Dadra and Nagar Funds are being transferred to Panchayats as

Haveli grants-in-aid. Only Village Panchayats are
empowered to collect taxes and also utilize
completely. Panchayats have received
Rs. 46.85 lakhs as untied funds in 2006-07.

Daman and Diu Matching with the devolution of function to the

district Panchayat, simultaneous devolution of
finances for implementation at the Panchayat
level has been carried out. A separate sector for
District Panchayat has been carved out in the
annual budget of UT, which contain both plan
and non-plan heads. In addition the funds
received under the Central plan schemes
concerning the 29 matters of the 11th Schedule
are also directly transferred to the district
Panchayat for implementation.

Lakshadweep The funds pertaining to functions devolved to

PRIs are being received by Panchayats from
various departments over the last 5 years.
Village Panchayats receive annual untied grants
of Rs. 5 lakhs which can be utilized only after
Panchayats have submitted their plan for the
same and the Director of Panchayat have

91
 1 2

approved the plan. The District Panchayats

receives annual untied grant of Rs. 20 lakhs
which can be spent only after the DPC chaired
by Collector approves the plan for the same.
However, District Panchayats can spend, at
their discretion, up to Rs. 25 lakhs from the
tax revenue.

Andaman and Nicobar Tied and Untied funds provided by Andaman

Islands and Nicobar Islands are utilized by the
Panchayats with flexibility in case of untied
funds. Untied funds are released in the ratio of
15:15:70 to Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samitis
and Gram Panchayat. Sectoral Funds for road
and water are distributed in the ratio of 1/3rd
of the total provision to all the three tiers.
Grant-in-aid released by the Administration is
used for all the developmental activities,
maintenance of created assets, infrastructure,
office expenses etc.

Chandigarh There are only 13 villages with 12 Gram

Panchayats in UT Chandigarh. Therefore,
activity mapping could not be undertaken for
Panchayats. However, schemes of Rural
Development Department are being implemented
through the Panchayats and funds for
implementing these schemes are released
to Panchayats by drawing from the State
exchequer and then the Panchayats utilize the
funds by maintaining their own bank accounts.

Puducherry Financial assistance in the form of tied and

untied grants-in-aid are being given the
PRIs. With respect to financial autonomy, the

92
1 2

Commune Panchayats have been empowered to

incur expenditure towards the execution of civil
works upto a limit of Rs. 10 lakhs for each
work and Village Panchayats are empowered to
incur expenditure of Rs. 1 lakh towards the
execution of civil works for each work. For
Centrally Sponsored Schemes i.e. Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan, Village Education Committees and
School Level Committees have been
re-constituted for implementation of the scheme
by appointing Village Panchayat President as
the President of the Committee. Under NRHM,
UT Health and Family Welfare Department
have constituted four Committees which,
inter alia, include Commune Panchayat
Councillor as the representative of the
Commune Panchayats. National Rural
Employment Guarantee Scheme is proposed to
be implemented w.e.f. 1.4.2008 through Village
Panchayats.

93
 Annexure III of Annex-2

DETAILS OF INSTITUTIONS TO BE TRANSFERRED TO PRIs

Sl. Name of the Institutions to be transferred

No. Department
Gram Panchayat Block Panchayat District Panchayat

1 2 3 4 5

1. Agriculture Office of the Assistant (i) Soil Testing Lab

Director, Agriculture (ii) District Marketing
Office
(iii) District farms

2. Animal (i) Veterinary (i) Veterinary Poly (i) District Veterinary

Husbandry Dispensary Clinic Hospital and
(ii) ICDP Sub Centre (ii) Zonal Artificial Training Centres
Insemination (ii) Mobile Veterinary
Centre Dispensary / farm
unit
(iii) Clinical Lab not
attached with
District Veterinary
Hospital
(iv) ICDP Area Office

3. Public Health (i) Primary Health (i) Block level District Hospitals
Centre / Rural Primary Health
Dispensary Centres
(ii) Maternity and (ii) Community
Child Welfare Health Centre
Centre (iii) Taluk Hospital /
(iii) Sub Centre Govt. Hospital

4. Indian System Ayurveda Hospital / Taluk Ayurveda District Ayurveda

of Medicine Dispensary Hospital Hospital
(Ayurveda)

5. Homoeopathy Homoeo Dispensary / Taluk Homoeo District Homoeo

Hospital Hospital Hospital

94
1 2 3 4 5

6. General Govt. Pre Primary — High School, LP / UP

Education School, School attached with
Lower Primary High School,
School, Higher Secondary
Upper Primary School, Teachers
School Training Centre and
Special School

7. Scheduled Caste / Balavadi, Balavadi (i) Block level —

Scheduled Tribe Feeding Centres, Scheduled Caste
Development Nursery School, Development
Seasonal Day Care Office
Centre, Midwifery (ii) Tribal Extension
Centres, Dormitory Office
(iii) Pre matric hostel

8. Rural Rural Development Block Development —

Development Office Office

9. Social Welfare Anganwadis Care Homes and Old —

age Homes

10.Fisheries — — Fisheries School

11. Industries — — District Industries

Centre

95
 Annexure IV of Annex-2

DETAILS OF FUNCTIONARIES TO BE TRANSFERRED TO PRIs

Sl. Name of the Officers to be transferred

No. Department
Gram Panchayat Block Panchayat District Panchayat

1 2 3 4 5

1. Agriculture Agricultural officer One post of Assistant (i) Principal

and auxiliary posts Director and auxiliary Agricultural
posts Officer and
auxiliary posts
(ii) Two posts of
Deputy Director
and auxiliary
posts
(iii) District soil con-
servation officer
and auxiliary
posts
(iv) One Assistant
executive
Engineer and
connected posts
(v) Officers and
staff of Mobile
soil testing
laboratory,
District sales
counter, District
agriculture farm

2. Animal Officers and staff of Officers and staff of (i) District Animal
Husbandry Veterinary Sub Cen- Veterinary Poly Husbandry
tre, Veterinary Dis- Clinic, Mobile farm officer and
pensary / Hospital and unit, Mobile veteri- auxiliary posts
ICDP sub centres nary dispensary (ii) Officers and
staff of ICDP
area office,
Mobile Veteri-
nary Dispensary,
Mobile farm
unit, clinical
laboratories not
attached to Dis-
trict Veterinary
centres

96
1 2 3 4 5

3. Dairy One Dairy Extension Block Level Dairy (i) Deputy Director
Development Officer and auxiliary Extension Officer and and auxiliary
Department posts (this unit should auxiliary posts posts
be created in one of
the Gram Panchayats
in the Block and
should cover all the
Gram Panchayats in
the block)

4. Fisheries One Fisheries Sub In- Nil (i) District level

Department spector (in the Gram Officer (Deputy
Panchayat wherever Director) and
necessary) auxiliary posts
(ii) Teachers and
other staff
fisheries schools

5. Industries Nil Industries Extension Manager and staff of

Officer District Industries
Centre

6. Rural Two Village The post of Block One post of Assistant

Development Extension Officers Development Officer Development
(including lady VEO) and auxiliary posts Commissioner and
the District Women's
Welfare Officer and
auxiliary staff, All
functionaries of
DRDA

7. Social Welfare Officers and staff of Officers and staff of District Social
Day care centres Child Development Welfare Officer,
and Anganwadis Project Office, Old District Programme
(ICDS Supervisor, Age Homes Care Officer and auxiliary
Anganwadis worker / Homes and similar posts
helper etc.) other institutions

8. Cooperation Nil Nil One Assistant,

Registrar and One
clerk

97
1 2 3 4 5

9. SC Officers and staff Block Level SC District SC Develop-

Development of Balawadies, Development Officer ment Officer and
Balawadi-cum-feed- and staff and Staff of auxiliary posts
ing centres, Seasonal pre-matric hostels
day care Centre and
dormitories of the
respective places.

10. ST Officers and staff of Tribal Extension ITD Project Officer

Development Balawadies, Medical Officer and auxiliary posts
Unit, nursery
schools, midwifery
centres of the respec-
tive places. Tribal
Extension Officers.

11. Health Services Medical Officers and Medical Officers and (i) District Medical
(Allopathy) other staff of PHCs / staff of Block Level Officer and
Govt. Dispensary and PHC/ CHC / Taluk auxiliary posts
sub-centres Hospital / Govt. Hos- (ii) Medical
pital Officers, Supt.
and all other
staff of District
Hospitals

12. Health Services Medical Officer and Medical Officers and (i) District Medical
(Homoeo) staff of Government auxiliary posts of Officer and
Homoeo dispensaries Taluk Hospital auxiliary posts
and hospitals of the (ii) Medical
respective places Officers, Supt.
and all other
staff of District
Hospitals

13. Health Services Medical Officer and Medical Officers and (i) District Medical
(ISM) staff of Ayurveda dis- auxiliary posts of Officer and
pensary and hospitals Taluk Hospital auxiliary posts
of the respective (ii) Medical
places Officers, Supt.
and all other
staff of District
Hospitals

98
1 2 3 4 5

14. General Headmasters, teach- Nil (i) District level

Education ers and other staff of Officer and
Primary Schools auxiliary posts
(ii) District and
Assistant Educa-
tional Officers
and auxiliary
posts
(iii) Teachers and
connected posts
of High Schools,
Special Schools
and Teachers
Training Insti-
tutes

15. Higher Nil Nil (i) Teachers and

Secondary connected posts
Education of Higher Sec-
ondary/ Voca-
tional Higher
Secondary
Schools

16. Technical Nil Nil All staff of Tailoring

Education and Garment making
centres and Tailoring
Trade Centres

17. Public Works Assistant Engineer Assistant Executive One Executive

Department/ and auxiliary posts Engineer and auxil- Engineer and
Irrigation (One AE for two iary posts auxiliary posts
Department Gram Panchayats)

18 Public Health Medical Officer and Medical Officer and District Medical
staff of Primary staff of Block level Officer and staff
Health Centre/ Primary Health of District Hospitals
Rural Dispensary, Centres, Community
Maternity and Child Health Centres and
Welfare Centre and Taluk Hospital / Govt.
Sub-Centre Hospital

19 Khadi and Nil Nil District Project

Village Officer and Staff
Industries Board

99
 Annexure-V of Annex-2

FIRST ROUND TABLE OF MINISTERS-IN-CHARGE OF

PANCHAYATI RAJ—KOLKATA

24-25th July, 2004

Effective Devolution of Functions:

(I) The Constitution (Article 243G) provides for “devolution”, that is,
the empowerment of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) to function
as institutions of self-government for the twin purposes of
(i) making plans for economic development and social justice for
their respective areas, and (ii) implementing programmes of
economic development and social justice in their respective areas,
for subjects devolved to the PRIs, including those listed in the
Eleventh Schedule, and subject to such conditions as the State
may, by law, specify. Therefore, the key objective is to ensure
that Panchayati Raj Institutions function as institutions of self-
government rather than as mere implementing agencies for other
authorities in respect of such functions as may be devolved on
them;

(II) While devolution must eventually comprise the entire range of

subjects provided for in the State legislation in a time-bound
manner, States/UTs may prioritize their devolution programme to
ensure that for such functions as are prioritized, there is full and
effective devolution in empowering PRIs as institutions of self-
government in respect of these functions;

(III) To this end, the essential step is the identification of activities

related to the devolved functions with a view to attributing each
of these activities to the appropriate tier of the 3-tier system. To
the extent possible, there should be no overlapping between tiers
in respect of any given activity;

(IV) In determining the tier of the Panchayati Raj System to which any
given activity is to be attributed, the principle of subsidiarity must,
to the extent possible, be followed. The principle of subsidiarity

100
 states that any activity which can be undertaken at a lower level
must be undertaken at that level in preference to being undertaken
at any higher level;

(V) On the basis of the identification of activities relating to devolved

functions, and through the application of the principle of the
subsidiarity, States/UTs may review/undertake time bound activity
mapping with a view to completing this exercise within the fiscal
year 2004-05;

(VI) The activity mapping model as evolved in the Ministry of Rural

Development in the Report of the Task Force on Devolution of
Powers and Functions upon Panchayati Raj Institutions, and the
information provided about existing State-wise activity mapping in
the Fact Sheets presented to the Round Table, might be drawn upon
by State Governments/UT Administrations for preparing their
respective activity mapping exercises;

(VII) The Union Ministry of Panchayati Raj could, on request, furnish

technical assistance and expertise to State Governments/UT
Administrations to accomplish activity mapping within the
time-frame indicated;

(VIII) With a view to promoting a measure of irrevocability of devolved

functions, devolution may be routed through legislative measures
or, alternatively, by providing a strong legislative framework for
devolution through executive orders.

Effective Devolution of Functionaries

(I) The devolution of functionaries to the Panchayati Raj Institutions

should be patterned on the activity mapping of activities related
to devolved functions;

(II) Where the devolved activity requires the deputation of State

Government officials to assist the elected PRI in planning or
implementing the devolved activity, the officials concerned must
be primarily responsible to, and under the disciplinary supervision
and control of, the elected authority;

101
(III) With a view to building a cadre of officials and technocrats
specialized in the devolved functions of the PRIs, State
Governments/UT Administrations may consider instituting a
Panchayati Raj Administrative and Technical Service, with the State
Government discontinuing further recruitment of staff to State
services for such devolved functions;

(IV) (i) Reconceiving the role of District Rural Development

Agencies (DRDAs) as an important instrument for Panchayati
Raj development through the progressive merger of DRDAs
with the District Panchayats. The technical expertise and other
facilities of the DRDAs should become available to all tiers
of the PRIs under the overall responsibility and disciplinary
control of the elected authority in the PRIs at the appropriate
level;

(ii) The activities of the reconceived DRDAs with respect to the

three tiers of the Panchayati Raj system should be patterned
on the activity map for the devolution of functions,
functionaries and funds so that all the three tiers of PRIs
have equitable access to the resources, expertise, facilities and
manpower of the DRDAs.

Effective Devolution of Finances

(I) The “sound finances” of the Panchayats is a Constitutional

obligation enjoined on the States by Article 243-I. In pursuance
of this Constitutional obligation, the States and the Centre, in a
true spirit of fiscal federalism, should work together to strengthen
the finances of the elected local bodies;

(II) To this end, the devolution of finances to the three tiers of the
Panchayati Raj System should be patterned on activity mapping
for the devolution of functions and functionaries, thus securing
effective devolution of powers to the PRIs through the linking of
the devolution of finances to the devolution of functions and
functionaries;

102
(III) On the basis of the principles adumbrated above, the State
Governments might attempt to prepare a road map, to be made
effective as soon as possible, and, in any case, by the end of the
next fiscal year 2005-06, which might include the following
components:—

(i) Devolution, tier-wise and based on activity mapping of:

(a) Planning;

(b) Budgeting;

(c) Provisioning of finances.

(ii) Inclusion of a PRI component in the budget of each State/

Central Government department based on activity mapping;

(iii) Provision of progressively larger untied funds, tier-wise, to

the Panchayats by State/Central Governments;

(iv) Provision of untied grants from the Planning Commission to

the PRIs, tier-wise, based on activity mapping;

(v) Tier-wise allocations, based on activity mapping of the PRIs,

of hitherto unallocated grants, if any, made by previous
Finance Commissions, and a pre-determined pattern for the
tier-wise allocation within a time bound framework of grants
from the 12th and future Finance Commissions;

(vi) A schedule, to be determined by each State Government/UT

Administration, of the time-frames within which State Finance
Commissions should prepare their reports; for the submission
of State Finance Commission recommendations, along with
Action Taken Reports (ATRs), to the Legislature; and for the
executive to act on recommendations/ATRs endorsed by the
State Legislature;

(vii) Steps to encourage PRIs to raise their own resources,

especially through the provision to “appropriate” revenues
raised by them for their own purposes (Article 243-H).

103
Gram Sabhas

(I) Article 243-A of Part IX of the Constitution provides for the

establishment of Gram Sabhas to “exercise such powers and
perform such functions at the village level as the Legislature of
a State may, by law, provide”;

(II) A strong system of Gram Sabhas is the indispensable foundation

of good governance through Panchayati Raj;

(III) Based on the two principles stated above, State Governments may
review the extant legislation to determine the legislative and other
steps which remain to be taken to ensure that the “powers” and
“functions” mentioned in Article 243A of the Constitution are
adequately incorporated in the State legislation. In particular, the
following points may be examined:—

(i) The need for constituting Sabhas below the Gram level (such
as Gram Sansad, Upa-Gram Sabha or Ward Sabha, by
whatever name called) with the aim of ensuring that the adult
population in each ward is given the opportunity of conveying
to the Gram Sabha their views on issues coming up for
consideration as also holding the elected Ward representative
responsible to the adult population in each Ward;

(ii) The periodicity of meetings of Gram Sabhas and Ward

Sabhas;

(iii) Provision for full and satisfactory consultation with special

or disadvantaged categories of the population, such as
women, SC/ST, landless labourer etc;

(iv) Provision for Mahila Sabha meetings, comprising all the adult
women of a Ward/Gram Panchayat area, to deliberate upon,
and decide the modalities of, expressing their views in the
Gram/Ward Sabhas;

(v) Endowing the Gram/Ward Sabha with meaningful empow-

erment through such measures as:

(a) Right/entitlement to all the information required for the

Gram/Ward Sabhas to contribute to transparent and

104
 good governance, as well as to make the elected
Panchayat truely answerable to the Gram/Ward Sabha;

(b) Approve before implementation commences, plans and

programmes (including budgets) for economic develop-
ment and social justice prepared by the Gram Panchayat;

(c) Authorize the issuance of utilization certificates of funds

allocated for the plans, projects or programmes of the
Panchayat;

(d) Identification of beneficiaries.

(vi) Such social audit measures may also be appropriately

institutionalized at the Block and District levels.

105
 ANNEXURE III

No. M-11011/16/2009-P and C (AR)

Government of India
Ministry of Panchayati Raj

Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi-110001

Dated: 9th April, 2009

From: A.N.P. Sinha, Secretary.

To: Chief Secretaries,

All States/UTs.

Subject: Panchayat Finances

Sir,

The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), in its 6th Report

titled ‘Local Governance — An inspiring journey into the future’ has drawn
the following broad conclusions on Panchayat Finances:

• Panchayats are heavily dependent on grants from Union and

State Governments.

• A major portion of grant from the Centre and States is scheme

specific.

• Panchayats have limited discretion and flexibility in incurring

expenditure.

• In most of the critical Eleventh Schedule matters like primary

education, healthcare, water supply, sanitation and minor
irrigation even now, the State Government is directly responsible
for implementation of the relevant programmes and hence
expenditure.

• Internal resource generation at the Panchayat level is weak. This

is partly due to a thin tax domain and partly due to Panchayats’
own reluctance in collecting revenue.

• Overall, a situation has been created where Panchayats have

responsibility but grossly inadequate resources.

106
Fiscal Decentralization

2. There is thus an imperative need for an effective fiscal

decentralization so as to ensure that the finances available with the
Panchayats match the transferred functions based on activity mapping for
the devolution of 3Fs. Further, there is a need to re-orient the regulatory
and policy regime and give the Panchayats more tax handles as also to
ensure that the taxation powers given are effectively exercised since
generating own revenue is the best way to increase autonomy, efficiency,
credibility and accountability of Panchayats. Moreover, fiscal decentralisation
needs to be viewed as a comprehensive system. Beginning with the
assignment of expenditure and revenue responsibility.

3. The Twelfth Finance Commission, on the basis of some studies,

has suggested measures such as making it obligatory for PRIs to levy certain
taxes, prescribing minimum revenue collection, levy of user charges, higher
efficiency in tax collection, economy in expenditure and transparency in
functioning.

Constitutional Provision on Panchayat Finances

4. The taxation power of the Panchayats essentially flow from

Article 243H, which reads as under:

“the Legislature of a State may, by law

• authorize a Panchayat to levy, collect and appropriate such

taxes, duties, tolls and fees in accordance with such procedure
and subject to such limits;

• assign to a Panchayat such taxes, duties, tolls and fees levied

and collected by the State Government for such purposes and
subject to such conditions and limits;

• provide for making such grants-in-aid to the Panchayat from

the Consolidated Fund of the State; and

• provide for constitution of such funds for crediting all moneys

received, respectively by or on behalf of the Panchayat and also
for the withdrawal of such moneys therefrom as may be specified
in the law.“

107
 5. Article 243-I of the Constitution mandates setting up of
State Finance Commission (SFC) with the objective of reviewing the
financial position of the Panchayats and making recommendations as to
the principles which should govern:

• distribution between the States and Panchayats of the net

proceeds of the taxes, duties, tolls and fees,

• determination of taxes, duties, tolls and fees to be assigned to

Panchayats,

• grants-in-aid to the Panchayats, and

• measures needed to improve the financial position of the

Panchayats.

We are separately issuing model guidelines on Composition of SFCs,

ToRs, Formats of the reports, Assessment and Projection of revenue and
expenditure, Award, etc.

Tax domain of PRIs and its Operationalization

6. A study of State Legislations indicates that the Village Panchayat

finances include more than 60 taxes and fees including octroi, property/
house tax, profession tax, land tax, taxes/tolls on vehicles, entertainment
tax/fee, license fee, tax on non-agricultural land, fee on registration of cattle,
sanitation/drainage/conservancy tax, water tax, lighting tax, education cess
and tax on fairs and festivals. Panchayat resources could also be augmented
through innovative tax/non-tax measures e.g., fee on tourist vehicles, special
amenities, restaurant, theatre, cyber cafe.

7. Further, all common property resources vested in the Panchayats

need to be identified, listed and made productive for revenue generation.
Panchayats could be empowered to collect cess on the royalty and
additional/special surcharge from minor minerals, forest produce and other
natural resources since the financial, ecological and health impact of such
activities is felt maximum in the surrounding areas and inhabitants.

8. As stated earlier, there is an urgent need to strengthen the

assessment and collection apparatus and the Panchayats need to be more

108
imaginative and assertive in tapping their revenue resources. The
State Governments should focus on prescribing band of rates for such taxes
and levies, mentoring, strengthening and incentivising Panchayats.

Devolution of Funds to PRls to be generally untied

9. Funds to PRIs are being transferred under a number of budget

heads, often in packets of small allotments against a plethora of agency
functions vis-a-vis Central and State schemes. This appears to be confusing.
The budget indexing and accounting procedure for allocation of funds to
the PRIs, therefore, needs to be simplified and made user and audit friendly.
There should also be a separate Panchayat window in the State Budget.

10. Except for the Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSSs) and

Additional Central Assistance (ACAs) Schemes serving national priorities/
objectives and purpose specific programmes of the States, all allocations
to PRIs should be untied so that the PRIs have the flexibility to plan and
implement their programmes in accordance with the local priorities.
The scheme guidelines should contain only a brief description of the
objectives and expected outcomes. I have separately written to all the
Union Secretaries with copy to you on 19.01.09 for ensuring centrality
of PRIs in the implementation of CSS and ACA schemes (copy annexed).

11. Ministry of Panchayati Raj is providing largely untied funds to

the States for PRIs under Backward Regions Grant Fund (BRGF). BRGF
intends to (a) promote decentralized, participative and holistic planning
process, as an essential condition for getting BRGF grant, (b) bridge the
critical gaps in development not met through the existing inflaws, and
(c) build capacity of PRIs and official functionaries. However, due to the
inadequate capacity in observance of the prescribed processes, expenditure
and reporting systems, this Ministry is not in a position to utilize the entire
annual allocation.

Market Borrowing

12. Strong PRIs need to be encouraged within the State Government

guidelines to borrow from the market on the strength of their credit viability
for infrastructure and income generating projects. Once these projects start
showing positive results, the financial institutions would be inclined to step
up lending.

109
Transfer of Funds

13. Transfer of funds to the PRIs without delay and diversion

through electronic tagging and tracking and placing information on the State
website would ensure better financial health, put pressure on Panchayats
to be more accountable and efficient and reduce parking and corruption.
TFC grants are already being transferred electronically to PRIs by many
States.

Account and Audit System

14. The need for having a simple and robust accounting and
reporting system for the PRIs is evident. We are working along with the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India, on such a system, having
appropriate MIS/DSS window, covering both the agency and core functions
of PRIs. Suitable advisory on Account and Audit (formal and social) is
being issued separately. The proposed e-PRI Project of this Ministry, which
would also house PRIA Soft (PRI Accounting System Software), should
facilitate the process.

Incentive for better performance

15. Providing incentive is an effective tool for motivating individuals

and institutions for better performance. Accordingly, PRIs showing higher
revenue collection including adopting innovative steps, should be suitably
rewarded viz. by linking some part of the award of the Finance Commissions
to the revenue generation efforts. The existing Panchayat Empowerment
and Accountability Incentivisation Scheme (PEAIS) would be modified for
greater weightage to the revenue efforts. State should also have their own
incentive/award mechanism.

Fiscal Responsibility Regime

16. This Ministry has drafted model Bill on Fiscal Responsibility

Regime for the PRIs (copy enclosed) with the following major objectives:
Medium term fiscal plan, Principles of Financial Management,
Transparency in Financial Management, Principle of audit of accounts,
Adherence to audit report and Measures to enforce compliance. The States
may like to enact the model Bill with modifications as appropriate.

110
Staffing and Capacity Building

17. The above efforts may not bear outcomes if not supplemented
by providing the PRls with adequate manpower, mentoring and guidance.
The States should, therefore, strengthen the administrative and enforcement
capacity of Panchayats through proper staffing including outsourcing,
frequent training programmes comprising well-structured modules
(possibly with the help of ICAI), simple guidelines etc. Sufficient funds
are available for 250 BRGF districts under BRGF and for non-BRGF
districts under RGSY.

Action Plan

18. Last, but not the least, the most important question is how and
where to start. I would suggest the following:

• Prepare details about assessed tax, collection made and arrears,

in respect of each tax and non-tax revenue, for each level
of Panchayats, through the permanent SFC Cell in the
State Govenment.

• Analyse Data collected for identifying broad trends among

Panchayats and for identifying champions and innovations.
Compile such good practices.

• Undertake a campaign to overcome the large slack in revenue

collection.

• Prepare a compendium of the relevant legal provisions

and executive orders in respect of the administration of
taxes by PRIs, incentivisation programmes, innovations,
recommendations of the SFC etc.

• Assist the SFC to lead policy work for (a) exploring appropriate
tax and non-tax revenue assignments, (b) ways and means of
administering and enforcing them including manpower and
training and (c) achieving a greater linkage between revenue
collection and spending decisions at the local level.

• Rationalise the number and type of Taxes, and assign atleast

a few important taxes to each level of Panchayat.

111
 • Re-examine the current rates of taxation and consider an upward
revision, remove maximum limits fixed on tax as also the
conditionalities that hamper or restrict taxation powers of
Panchayats. Do not abolish taxes in Panchayat domain
(e.g. some States have abolished house tax).

• Incentivise tax efforts of Panchayats by reworking the formulae

for devolution of funds and also provide for disincentives for
non-performing PRIs.

• Fix user charges on a rationale basis and incentivise/

deincentivise PRIs for enforcement.

Role of MoPR

19. The Ministry of Panchayati Raj would, on its part, assist the
States in designing local solutions, designing training programmes,
developing software solutions for tax management and networking with
champions. It would also undertake analysis of the State trends to identify
initiatives and drives, conduct periodical experience sharing workshop,
support policy studies on local taxation particularly on ascertaining taxation
capacity and designing incentive packages.

20. In conclusion, the sound finances of the Panchayats is a

Constitutional obligation and in pursuance thereof, the States and the
Centre, in a true spirit of fiscal federalism, should work together to
strengthen finances of the PRIs. I would, therefore, be looking forward
to expeditious action on the suggestions above and apprising us of the
progress and difficulties.

Yours sincerely,

Sd/-
(A.N.P. Sinha)

Copy to: Principal Secretaries of Finance Department/Panchayati Raj

Department, all States/UTs.

Copy to: Secretaries, Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure)/

Planning Commission, Ministry of Urban Development.

112
 ANNEXURE IV

No. M-11011/162/2008-P&C(AR)
Government of India
Ministry of Panchayati Raj

Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001.

Dated: 23rd October, 2009

From: A.N.P. Sinha,

Secretary.

To: Chief Secretary,

All States/UTs

Subject: Guidelines on Manpower for the Panchayati Raj Institutions

(PRIs).

Sir,

The 73rd Amendment to the Constitution in 1993 has ushered in an

important chapter in the process of democratic decentralization in the
country. The PRIs have consequently become a permanent tier of
self government at the local level with, inter alia, specific role in planning
and implementation of programmes for economic development, service
delivery and social justice, particularly in relation to 29 matters listed in
the 11th Schedule. The 11th Plan stipulates substantial empowerment and
use of the PRIs as the primary means of delivery.

2. However, even after 15 years of the Amendment, the PRIs are

generally yet to come up as the effective units of self-governance due to
several reasons, a key reason being inadequate capacity of the PRIs,
which has two facets, namely, their organizational capacity and capability
of the officials and elected representatives. All the same, their responsibility
are increasing progressively due to their role in the planning and
implementation of NREGA, BRGF, MDM, SSA, NRHM, TFC and so on.

3. The issue of capacity of the PRIs was deliberated upon in

the 1st Round Table of Ministers in-charge of Panchayati Raj held at

113
Kolkata on 24th-25th July, 2004 where the following resolutions were
adopted:—

(i) Devolution of functionaries to the PRIs should be patterned on

the mapping of activities related to the devolved functions.

(ii) Where deputation of State Government officials is required to

assist the PRIs in planning or implementing the devolved
activity, the officials concerned must be primarily responsible
to, and be under the disciplinary supervision and control of the
elected authority.

(iii) With a view to building a cadre of officials and technocrats

specialized in the devolved functions of the PRIs, States/
UTs may consider instituting a Panchayati Raj Administrative
and Technical Service, with the States/UTs discontinuing
further recruitment of staff to State services for such devolved
functions.

(iv) Reconceiving the role of District Rural Development Agencies

(DRDAs) as an important instrument for PRIs development
through the progressive merger of the DRDAs with the District
Panchayats. The technical expertise and other facilities of the
DRDAs should become available to all tiers of the PRIs under
the overall responsibility and disciplinary control of the elected
authority.

4. The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), in its

6th Report titled ‘Local Governance–an inspiring journey into the future’,
has made the following recommendations on this issue:—

(i) Panchayats should have power to recruit personnel and to

regulate their service conditions subject to such laws and
standards as laid down by the State Government. Evolution of
this system should not be prolonged beyond three years. Until
then, the Panchayats may draw upon, for defined periods, staff
from departments/agencies of the State Government, on
deputation.

114
 (ii) In all States, a detailed review of the staffing pattern and
systems, with a zero-based approach to PRI staffing may be
undertaken over the next one year in order to implement the
policy of PRI ownership of staff. The Zila Parishads, particularly,
should be associated with this exercise.

5. Further, in a good paper on ‘Administrative Decentralization for

Effective Functioning’ of the PRIs, some specific measures have been
suggested as listed at Annex.-I.

6. Logically, for the subjects listed in the 11th Schedule and others
that have been devolved, the Panchayats should have the power to (i) recruit
personnel, (ii) regulate their service conditions, and (iii) exercise control
over them, subject to such laws and standards as may be laid. However,
due to several factors such as (i) service conditions of the existing
employees, (ii) lack of enabling administrative and legislative environment
for transferring the State Govt. employees to the Panchayat Cadre,
(iii) resistance from the existing employees etc., there would be problems
in implementing this arrangement. Therefore, the following transitional and
permanent arrangements with a definite time line are suggested.

(i) A quasi Gram Panchayat (GP) Cadre of field level functionaries,

whose work is vital to the GP and whose work touches the lives
of people at large, should be created. This would include:
Panchayat Secretary, Accountant, Technical Assistant, Computer
Operator, Teachers, ANMs, Anganwadi Workers, Agricultural
Assistants, Livestock Assistant, Motor Pump Mechanic,
Electricity department Linemen etc.

(ii) If the area of operation of these functionaries is a GP, they

should be fully answerable to the GP though recruited by the
District Panchayat. Eligibility, service conditions and recruitment
procedure for this group could be specified by the State
Government without diluting the authority of GPs.

(iii) The existing staff on these posts should be allowed to continue

till they superannuate or are promoted. The resultant vacancies
should be filled by GP cadre alone.

115
 (iv) The District Panchayat Cadre (DP Cadre) could comprise of
officials that have jurisdiction over areas larger than a GP.
Employees of the DP cadre would supervise the work of the
functionaries at the GP level. Examples of this would be:
Extension Officers, junior engineers etc. Some employees listed
above for the GP cadre could also fall in this cadre. The DP
cadre could be constituted by a judicious mix of direct
recruitments and promotion from the GP Cadre. Only those
found to be meeting expected standards measured in quantifiable
terms should be considered for promotion. Perhaps entering the
DP cadre from GP cadre could get more than one promotion
within the DP Cadre, before he/she can move to the next level.

(v) State Cadre: Ideally, even Class I and II officers should belong
to DP Cadre. However, during the transition period, this cadre
could be a State Cadre and people from this cadre should be
posted on deputation to the District/Intermediate Panchayats.

(vi) The possible promotional channel could be illustrated as follows:

The levels/nomenclature would evidently be State specific.

(a) Panchayat Secretary (GP Cadre) → Village Development

Officer (DP Cadre) → Extension Officer (Panchayat)
(DP Cadre) BDO → (State Cadre) Further → promotions
as per the State policy.

(b) Anganwadi Worker (GP Cadre) → Mukhya Sevika

(DP Cadre) → ACDPO (DP Cadre) → CDPO (State
Cadre) → State Directorate/Commissionarate.

(c) Agriculture Asstt. (GP Cadre) → Extension Officer (Agr.)

(DP Cadre) → Agriculture Officer (DP Cadre) → State
Cadre

7. As evident, the Panchayat should normally have four categories

of staff :

(i) Core staff for its internal processes: Secretary, Accountant,

Technical Assistant and Computer Operator. Given the ever

116
 increasing responsibilities and complexity of the task in the GP,
it would be desirable to create a post of Panchayat Development
Officer with a degree in Business Administration Rural
Management or a similar degree;

(ii) Scheme Specific Staff: for example, NREGA provides (a) for
GP—Gram Rozgar Sewak; (b) for Block Panchayats—one
Programme Officer, a pool of few Technical Assistants to service
GPs; Computer Assistants and Accountant; and (c) for District
Panchayats Works Manager with Technical assistant, IT Manager
with Computer Assistant, Accounts Manager with Accounts
Assistant, Coordinator for social audit and grievance redressal.

(iii) Functional Staff: such as Teachers, ASHA, Anganwadi workers.

(iv) Contractual skilled workers: such as Motor Mechanic, Hand

Pump Mechanic, Electrician.

8. It is well recognised that the size of Panchayats varies widely

from State to State and, therefore, the core and other staff strength, mode
of selection, appointment etc., may not be uniform. Reasonable norms based
on the area/population/terrain of the Panchayat and functions devolved need
to be laid down.

9. The required personnel be provided in the first instance by

transferring the relevant departmental personnel and making them fully
accountable to PRIs. This should be followed by creating local cadres,
permitting lateral shift of staff, providing flexibility to the PRIs to outsource
technical personnel from the empanelled providers, strengthening
supervisory powers of the PRIs over the local staff and increasing the
proportion of women staff members. For natural resource development, a
pool of technical staff shared by a cluster of GPs may be provided.

10. As regards the creation of a Panchayat cadre, the Maharashtra

model is worth considering. A brief note on the same is at Annex.-II.

11. Administrative reforms of this nature would require an extensive

study of the existing cadres, staffing patterns, strength of each cadre,
Recruitment Rules etc. Based on the current status and keeping in mind

117
the broad principles enunciated above, a road map for gradual transition
to the desired State could be worked out. The Recruitment Rules for these
cadres would require amendments so as to be able to reach the final
destination without resulting disadvantage to the existing personnel. This
Ministry would support States, engage reputed consultancy organizations
and commission studies with, inter-alia, following ToRs:

(i) Compile information of all cadres, their strengths, vacant

positions, anticipated future vacancies with time lines,
Recruitment Rules etc.

(ii) Make recommendations on rationalization/convergence of

various cadres.

(iii) Suggest changes required in Administrative Orders/rules etc. for

implementing the accepted recommendations and the draft of
the amendments.

(iv) Suggest other implementable measures that would result in

transition to the desired State along with time lines.

(v) Give Job description for each post and develop skill
development matrices for training of persons to discharge their
duties efficiently.

(vi) Make appropriate recommendations for performance

measurement at each level in the GP and DP Cadres.

12. Resources for deploying core staff of the Panchayats could be

found out of the State resources, BRGF, NREGA, Finance Commission
Awards etc. as per a well considered phasing. Other staff could be financed
under the existing Plan/non-Plan arrangements.

13. Progress made in the matter may be furnished to us from time

to time. Your suggestions in the matter would help us refine these
guidelines.

Yours sincerely

(A.N.P. Sinha)

Copy to: Principal Secretaries, Panchayati Raj/Rural Development/

Finance Deptts., all States/UTs.

118
 Annexure–I of Annex. 4

Administrative decentralization for the effective functioning of PRIs

• Doing away with the system of deputations.

• Converging of cadres and lateral movement of staff.

• Moving towards a system of decentralized recruitment and local

cadres.

• Freeing PRI office bearers and members from the web of restrictive
administrative instructions.

• Re-establishing the primacy of the CEO in the administrative

hierarchy of the District.

• Ensuring smooth coordination between Departments.

• Ensuring responsibility to the elected body.

• Ensuring that performance appraisal is done by the appropriate PRI.

• Bringing in additional safeguards into performance appraisal.

• Re-writing technical scrutiny rules to make them more transparent

and simple.

• De-monopolising the availability of technical guidance.

• Giving powers to the Gram Panchayats to monitor attendance of

essential staff.

• Posting full time accounts staff to Gram Panchayats.

• Allowing Gram Panchayats to outsource services.

• Upgrading the post of Secretary to the Gram Panchayat.

• Finding people of appropriate levels to man the upgraded posts.

• Getting more women to work as Panchayat Secretaries.

• Undertaking a sustained, forward looking and well structured training

campaign for equipping Panchayat Secretaries with relevant skills.

119
 Annexure–II of Annex. 4

Staffing of Panchayats–Maharashtra Zilla Parishads

In Maharashtra, Class-I and Class-II officers are from State Cadres.

Class I & II officers from various deptts. viz. Education, Health, PWD,
Minor irrigation, Drinking Water supply, Social welfare, Finance and
Accounts, RDD (BDO’s, Addl. CEOs, PD DRDA etc.) are posted on
deputation to the Zilla Parishads. The CEO is an IAS Officer (senior time
scale). Both the District collector and CEO report to the Divisional
Commissioner. CEO does not report to Collector.

2. However, Class-II and Class-IV employees are Parishad

employees and not State Government employees. They belong to the
following 3 categories: District Subordinate Services, District Technical
Services, District Services.

3. There are separate service rules for each of these categories,

which include recruitment, leave, provident fund, disciplinary proceedings
etc. In these 3 categories, there are 59 cadres (earlier there were 80+, now
rationalized) as enclosed. Employees of these cadres are recruited for a
district and are controlled by the Zilla Parishads concerned. These
employees are not transferable out of that district.

4. In the Recruitment Rules of the State Government cadres

(Class II), almost always, certain percentage of vacancies are filled through
promotion from the District cadres. Thus an employee recruited in a District
cadre would, after reaching the maximum of the possible grade in the
District cadre, would be entitled to be promoted in the State cadre. The
channels for promotion are well defined in the respective rules.

5. For example: A Gram Sevak → Extension officer (Agriculture)

(District Cadre) → Agriculture Officer (District Cadre) → Sub Divisional
Agriculture Officer (Class II post—State Cadre).

Alternatively, Gram Sevak → Village Development Officer (District

Cadre), → Extension Officer (Panchayat) (District Cadre).

120
 Annexure-II (part) of Annex.-4

1. Section Officer
2. Superintendent
3. Extension Officer (Statistics)
4. Steno-typist (LG)
5. Steno-typist (HG)
6. Stenographer
7. Senior Assistant
8. Junior Assistant (Acctts.)
9. Driver
10. Asstt. Acctts. Officer
11. Deputy Acctt.
12. Senior Asstt. (Acctts.)
13. Junior Asstt. (Acctts.)
14. Extension Officer (Panchayats)
15. Village Development Officer
16. Gram Sevak
17. Medical Officer
18. Medical Officer (Class III)
19. Pharmacist
20. Lab Technician
21. Leprosy Technician
22. Extension Officer (Health)
23. Health Asstt. (Male)
24. Health Worker (Male)
25. Health Worker (Female)
26. Health Asstt. (Female)
27. Health Supervisor
28. Projectionist
29. Photographer

121
 30. Agriculture Officer
31. Extension Officer (Agri.)
32. Junior Engineer (Civil)
33. Asstt. to Jr. Engineer
34. Chief Draftsman
35. Draftsman
36. Junior Draftsman
37. Tracer
38. Mistry (Grade-I)
39. Mistry (Grade-ll)
40. Senior Mechanic
41. Junior Mechanic
42. Electrician
43. Fitter
44. Asstt. Livestock Development Officer
45. Livestock Supervisor
46. Extension Officer (Education) — Grade II
47. Extension Officer (Education) — Grade III
48. Asstt. Teacher (Secondary) — Upper grade
49. Asstt. Teacher (Secondary) — Lower Grade
50. Junior College Teacher
51. Kendra Pramukh (Education)
52. Primary School Teacher
53. Head Master
54. Deputy Head Master
55. Lab Asstt.
56. Asstt. Child Development Officer
57. Supervisor (Child Development)
Class IV
58. Peon
59. Dresser

122
 ANNEXURE V
DETAILS OF DISTRICT PANCHAYATS

SI. Name of the No. of Rural Districts No. of Rural No. of Rural District Reasons for not having
No. State/UTs Districts having not having District District Panchayat
District Panchayat Panchayat in terms given by State
in terms of Part IX of Part IX of the Governments
of the Constitution Constitution
as on as on as on as on as on as on
1.4.2009 1.4.2010 1.4.2009 1.4.2010 1.4.2009 1.4.2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Andhra Pradesh 22 22 22 22 0 0 Does not arise

2. Arunachal Pradesh 16 16 16 16 0 0 NA
3. Bihar 38 38 38 38 0 0
4. Chhattisgarh 18 18 16 18 02 Nil Dantewada and Jagdalpur
have been reorganized and
divided into four new
districts, i.e. respectively
Bijapur and Narayanpur
in mid session of the
Panchayat.

123
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

124
5. Haryana 21 21 19 19 02 02 In district Mewat and
Palwal i.e. two District
Panchayats i.e. Zilla
Parishads have been
established in the month
of Jan. 2010 and the
elections of all these
21 Zilla Parishads are
scheduled in April/May,
2010.
6. Himachal Pradesh 12 12 12 12 0 0 NA
7. Jharkhand 24 24 24 24 - - Election to Panchayats
have not been held so far.
8. Karnataka 29 30 29 30 - - All the Districts are having
District Panchayats.
9. Kerala 14 14 14 14 - - In Kerala State, there
is no classification/
categorization of districts
as rural or urban.
Therefore the question of
rural districts which do
not have District
Panchayats, does not arise.
There are Panchayats (as
laid down in Article 243B
of Part IX of the
Constitution of India) in
all 14 revenue districts.
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10. Madhya Pradesh 50 50 50 50 - - -

11. Maharashtra 33 33 33 33 0 0 NA
12. Manipur 9 9 4 4 5 5 Out of 9 districts of
Manipur in 4 valley
districts the Manipur
Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
extends but in 5 Hill
districts, the Manipur (Hill
Areas) District Council
Act, 1971 or the Manipur
(Village Authorities in the
Hill Areas) Act, 1956
extends, That is why the
District Panchayats have
not been extended in the
Hill Districts.

13. Punjab 20 20 20 20 NA NA -
14. Sikkim 4 4 4 4 Nil Nil NA
15. Tripura 4 4 4 4 4 4 The Part IX of the
(partly) (partly) (partly) (partly) Constitution is not
accessible in the
6th Scheduled Area.

125
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

126
16. Uttar Pradesh 71 71 71 71 0 0 NA
17. Uttarakhand 13 13 13 13 0 0 Not applicable
18. West Bengal 18 18 18 18 Nil Nil Does not arise.
UTs
1. Andaman & Nicobar 3 3 2 2 1 1 Nicobar District being a
tribal area, has been
notified as reserved areas
under the A & N Islands
PAT Regulation, 1965.
Hence the Andaman &
Nicobar Islands Panchayat
Regulation is not extended
to Nicobar District.
Panchayat Regulation
applies to Non-tribal areas
to this District.
2. Chandigarh UT 1 1 1 1 - - -
3. Daman and Diu 2 2 1 1 1 1 The District Panchayat,
Daman and Diu with
headquarters at Moti
Daman came into
existence from
25.09.1995.
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4. Lakshadweep 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA
5. Puducherry 2 2 0 0 2 2 Necessary exemption has
been obtained from the
Government of India to
dispense with the
constitution of District
Panchayat in this Union
Territory — vide
notification bearing
No. S.O. 312(E) dated
13.4.1994 issued by the
Ministry of Home Affairs.
The Puducherry Village
and Commune Panchayats
Act, 1973 envisages only
two tier Panchayats at the
village level and commune
Panchayats (Intermediate
Panchayats) at Commune
level.

Total 425 426 421 415 17* 15*

*Four districts of Tripura are partly covered under Part IX and partly covered under Scheduled Area.

127
 ANNEXURE VI

No. N-11019/59/2006-Pol.I
Government of India
Ministry of Panchayati Raj

Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi-110001.

Dated: 21st January, 2010

From: A.N.P. Sinha,

Secretary.

To: Chief Secretary,

All States/UTs.

Subject: Guidelines on Construction of Gram Panchayat (GP) Buildings

and Bharat Nirman Rajiv Gandhi Sewa Kendras (BNRGSK).

Sir,

The 73rd Amendment to the Constitution in 1993 has ushered in an

important chapter in the process of democratic decentralization in the country. The
Panchayats have consequently become a permanent tier of self Government with
specific role in planning and implementation of programmes for economic
development, service delivery and social justice, particularly in relation to
29 matters listed in the 11th Schedule. Moreover, the 11th Plan document
stipulates substantial empowerment and use of the Panchayati Raj Institutions
(PRIs) as the primary means of delivery.

2. However, even after 15 years of the Amendment, the Panchayats in

many cases are yet to come up as the effective units of self-governance due to
several factors, a key factor being the inadequate infrastructure. A large number
of GPs do not have even office buildings and full-time staff. All the same, their
responsibilities are increasing progressively with their role in the planning and
implementation of NREGA, BRGF, MDM, SSA, NRHM, TFC and so on.

3. For MGNREGA in particular, the Panchayats are the principal

authorities for planning and implementation under section 13 of the Act. At least
50 per cent of NREGS funds, which are in the order of Rs. 40,000 crore this year,
are to be spent directly by the GPs besides several other functions as listed in
Annexure I. These features of NREGS offer a unique opportunity to strengthen
and enable particularly the GPs. The enabled GPs, in turn, can become powerful

128
instruments in making NREGS a much better success. It is generally seen that
States having vibrant and optimally sized GPs with requisite capability have
implemented NREGS better. There is self-evident symbiosis between NREGS and
the GPs. It would, therefore, be necessary that GPs offices also have NREGA
offices, to be called Bharat Nirman Rajiv Gandhi Sewa Kendra (BNRGSK).

4. GP buildings in particular would not only symbolize the rise of PRl

but also provide physical space for people to interact with the GP representatives
and functionaries for transacting the expanding business of the Panchayats.
Accordingly, vide our letter dated 29th April, 2009 (reiterated through letter
dt. 9th Nov., 2009), the States were advised, inter-alia, to provide GP buildings
and ICT on a high priority under BRGF.

5. Further, vide notification dt. 11.11.2009 of Ministry of Rural

Development (MoRD), construction of BNRGSK as knowledge Resource Centre
and Gram Panchayat Bhawan at GP level, have become admissible items under
NREGS. Infact, based on the proposal of MoPR, MoRD vide its letter
dt. 30th Dec., 2009, has already issued necessary guidelines (copy enclosed). At
the GP level, a section of BNRGSK will house the GP office wherever the GP
does not have a building. Where there is adequate infrastructure for the GP, the
BNRGSK will be constructed as a Citizen-centric Knowledge Resource Centre.
As far as possible, this will be structurally connected to the GP building, or near
it, to facilitate proper management and control of the resources created.

6. The source of funding for the construction would be:

(i) For the BRGF districts — the material component may be met from
BRGF and the labour component from NREGA. In case, the material
resources support from BRGF is inadequate, the same can be incurred
under NREGS provided the material component does not exceed 40%
at the district level;

(ii) For the non-BRGF district— NREGS would be the main source. The
material component can also be supplemented through other schemes
including RGSY of MoPR.

The maximum expenditure under NREGS for BNRGSK building at Block

and Gram Panchayat level would be Rs. 25 and Rs. 10 lakhs respectively.

7. With a view to imparting Panchayats a national identity and signature:

(i) Building designs have been made through the School of Planning and
Architecture. Evidentally, the Cost norms would be as per the State

129
 Schedule of Rates and there would be local design variations
depending on the geo-climatic conditions and the availability of
construction material & skills;

(ii) States could also think of combined GP Buildings to accommodate

the revenue and other GP level sectoral staff and their functions. But
NREGS/BRGF funding would be restricted to the amounts mentioned
in para 6 above. The States and the Sectoral Programmes would have
to bear the balance. The GP Building design could accommodate
future expansion.

8. As stated in para 8 of the guidelines of MoRD, construction of

BNRGSK should be taken on priority and Time-bound plan for the completion
of all BNRGSKs at GP and Block level may be submitted to this Ministry also.
The Labour Budget for 2010-2011 under NREGS should estimate the number of
such works and indicate their location. Similarly, BRGF component should be
incorporated in the BRGF Plans.

9. Finally, with a view to having a good idea of the existing capacity

of Gram Panchayat, kindly furnish the following information for an average GP:—

(i) Population of a GP; (ii) Functions actually devolved a GP;

(iii) scheme-wise funds given to a GP last year; (iv) Sanctioned and existing
staff; (v) IT facility available; (vi) No. of Panchayats, district-wise, without
buildings; (vii) Space requirement (with justification), indicating Plinth area
of the existing building; (viii) Any other relevant information.

10. Your suggestions in the matter would help us refine the above
guidelines, if need be.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(A.N.P. Sinha)

Copy to Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, All States/UTs.

130
 Annexure-I of Annexure-6

MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES OF GRAM PANCHAYATS IN NREGA

1. Prepare a development plan and maintain a shelf of possible works to be

taken up under NREGA, taking into account the recommendations of the
Gram Sabha and Ward Sabha.

2. Register those who are willing to work under NREGA and issue a job card
to them.

3. Receive applications for work and issue a dated receipt to the applicant.

4. Allocate work opportunities among the applicants and ask them to report
for work.

5. Display a list of persons who are being provided with work on its notice
board.

6. Implement works that have been sanctioned by the Programme Officer.

7. Make all relevant documents available to the Gram Sabha for the purpose
of social audits.

8. Keep a copy of the muster rolls available for public scrutiny at the Panchayat
office.

9. Prepare an annual report on the implementation of the Scheme.

131
 ANNEXURE VII

No. H-11016/2/2010-RBH
Government of India
Ministry of Panchayati Raj

Sardar Patel Bhawan, New Delhi,

Dated the 16th July 2010.

To

The Principal Secretary/Secretaries

PR and RD Department
(All States and UTs).
Subject: Furnishing of Action Taken Replies on the recommendations
contained in the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Rural
Development on Demands for Grants (2010-11) of Ministry of
Panchayati Raj.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to the above cited subject and to say that the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Rural Development have made certain
observations/recommendations while considering the Demand for Grants
(2010-11) of this Ministry. It has been found that on some of the observations/
recommendations action is required to be taken by States/UTs. In this connection,
attention is invited to the recommendations/observations made by the Committee
in Paras 4.5, 4.54, 4.62, 4.63 and 5.35 Copies of these paras are enclosed.
2. After going through contents of above mentioned para it would be
seen that action is required to be taken by States/UTs urgently and information/
details/comments are to be sent to this Ministry so that the Action Taken Report
may be sent to the Committee accordingly. Broadly, following action is required
to be taken by the States/UTs on respective paras:
(i) Paras 4.5 and 4.54: The details about holding of the meeting of
Gram Sabha, Mahila Sabha and Ward Sabha in all the PRIs may be
intimated to this Ministry. In this connection attention is also invited
to the fact that the detailed guidelines for effective functioning of
the Gram Sabha were issued vide this Ministry's communication
No. J-11011/12/2009-Media dated 2.10.2009 to all Chief Secretaries.
Annexure-II of that communication contained the Guidelines for
conducting Gram Sabha Meetings and the format of conduct of the
Gram Sabha meeting was also reflected in the same. Copy of
Annexure-II of that communication dated 2.10.2009 is enclosed. The
same may be circulated to all Gram Panchayats and the details of

132
 holding of the meetings of Gram Sabha, Mahila Sabha and Ward
Sabha in the current year being observed as the Gram Sabha Year may
be sent to this Ministry urgently.
In case the meetings of the Mahila Sabhas have not been held before
the Gram Sabha the reasons for the same may be intimated to this
Ministry so that the Committee is informed accordingly.
(ii) Para 4.62: In view of the observations made by the Committee it will
be appreciated that it would not be proper if the male Pradhans/
Pramukhs of the Gram Panchayat do not perform their duties and
demonstrate any weakness with regard to performance of their duties
by allowing their relatives who are or other persons to function as
proxy for them. It is, therefore, necessary that appropriate action is
taken against such weak male Pradhans/Pramukhs of the Gram
Panchayat. In addition to this the action may be taken by Secretary
of the Panchayat who are or the concern Government officer in whose
presence the meetings of Gram Panchayats are held and the male
relatives who are or other persons connected with the weak Pradhans/
Pramukhs of the Gram Panchayat are allowed to perform the duties
of elected Pradhans/Pramukhs. It is requested that suitable instructions
may be issued to the concerned authorities at all level of PRIs in the
State and action taken may be reported to this Ministry for further
necessary action.
(iii) Para 4.63: In view of the observations made by the Committee it is
requested that the considered comments of the State Government may
be sent to this Ministry about the performance of the scheme of
Panchayat Mahila Evam Yuva Shakti Abhiyan (PMEYSA) in the
State. The achievements made under the scheme and the bottlenecks
felt in the implementation of the scheme impeding the total success
of the scheme may be intimated to this Ministry so that this Ministry
may consider the matter further.
3. It is requested that the action with regard to the above mentioned paras
may be taken on top priority basis and the position about action taken alongwith
copies of the relevant communications may be sent to this Ministry within a month
so that the Parliamentary Standing Committee is provided with the Action Taken
Report (ATR) accordingly.
Yours faithfully,

(Maha Bir Pershad)

Deputy Secretary
Tele No. 23746567

133
 ANNEXURE VIII

No. N-11019/538/2007-Pol-I(Vol-II)
Government of India
Ministry of Panchayati Raj

Samrat Hotel, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi ,

Dated: 26th May 2009.

OFFICE ORDER

Subject: Constitution of National Advisory-cum-Review Committee on BRGF.

The Backward Regions Grant Fund Programme (BRGF) is designed to

redress regional imbalances in development. The Fund provides financial
resources to the States for supplementing and converging existing developmental
inflows into 250 identified districts, so as to:—

(a) bridge critical gaps in local infrastructure and other development

requirements that are not being adequately met through existing
inflows;

(b) strengthen, to this end the Panchayati Raj and Municipality level
governance through appropriate capacity building, to facilitate
participatory planning, decision making, implementation and
monitoring, to reflect felt local needs;

(c) provide professional support to local bodies for planning, implemen-

tation and monitoring their plans; and

(d) improve the performance and delivery of critical functions assigned

to Panchayats, and counter the possible efficiency and equity losses
on account of inadequate local capacities.

2. Considering the importance of BRGF in addressing the national

objective of redressing the regional imbalances, a National Advisory-cum-Review
Committee is constituted as follows:—

1. Shri V. Ramachandran, IAS (Retd.) — Chairman

2. Shri B.N. Yugandhar, IAS (Retd.) — Member

3. Shri V. Ramani, DG, YASHADA, Pune — Member

4. Director, ADRI, Patna — Member

134
 5. Director, XLRI, Jamshedpur — Member

6. Director, SIRD, Chhattisgarh — Member

7. Senior Advisor (MLP), Planning Commission — Member

8. Shri Rajesh Tandon (PRIA) — Member

9. Additional Secretary, MoPR — Member Secretary

The Committee would co-opt invite Principal Secretaries and local

institutions of key BRGF States.

3. The Terms of Reference of the Committee are as follows:

(a) Assess the extent to which objectives of BRGF have been fulfilled;

(b) Review the quality of programme management at Central, State and

District levels;

(c) Assess the quality of distract plans, frequently occurring deficiencies,

aspects of capacity building, planning process, role of Training
support Institutions etc.;

(d) Adequacy of monitoring mechanism;

(e) Need for modification in the objective and design of BRGF including
the Block as Unit for BRGF funding; and

(f) Any other matter relevant to the subject.

4. The Committee will submit its first report within 3 months and
thereafter quarterly.

5. The TA/DA entitlements of the Chairperson and the communicated

separately.

Sd/-

(Susan D. George)
Director
Tel. No. 24122938

Distribution:

1. Shri V. Ramachandran, Chairman, Centre for Management Development,

Tycand P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 014.

135
2. Shri B.N. Yugandhar, Member, Planning Commission, New Delhi.

3. Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister of India, South Block, New Delhi.

4. Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi.

5. Principal Advisor, Planning Commission, Yojana Bhawan, New Delhi.

6. Shri V. Ramani, Director General, YASHADA, Rajbhawan Complex, Baner

Road, Pune.

7. Director, State Resource Centre, Asian Development Research Institute

(ADRI), BSIDC Colony, Off. Boring, Patliputra Road, Patna-800 013,
Bihar.

8. Director, Xavier Labour Relations Institute, Jamshedpur,

Jharkhand-831 035.

9. Director, Chhattisgarh State Institute of Rural Development, Nimora,

Raipur-492 015, Chhattisgarh.

10. Advisor (MLP), Planning Commission, Yojana Bhawan, New Delhi.

11. Shri Rajesh Tandon, President, PRIA (Society for Participatory Research
in Asia) 42, Tughlakabad Institutional Area, New Delhi-110 062.

Copy to:

Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Departments, All States/UTs

for information.

136
 ANNEXURE IX
Recommendations of NARC and Response of MoPR

S.No. Recommendations Response of MoPR

1 2 3

2.1 The BRGF should continue with its untied We agree.

nature and emphasis on filling up developmental
gaps. It should also continue to focus on its
emphasis on capability building, constitution of
DPCs and catalyze planning across rural and
urban areas in the district.

2.2 Every District should come out with the district MoPR has set up an
profile of backwardness to be upgraded once in inter-Ministerial Group
every three years. on the issue of indicators
and geographical unit
for measurement of
backwardness.

2.3 Although sophisticated and well-thought As above.

methodologies have been applied to measure
the backwardness in the last few decades,
however, there is no consensus on the parameters.
It is, therefore, suggested that a simple,
verifiable and measurable index of rural
backwardness be evolved by the MoRD, MoPR
and Planning Commission in consultation with
the States. The unit for determination of
backwardness may be the Block.

2.4 At present monitoring of BRGF is mostly on The Scheme envisages

releases and expenditure. Since BRGF is an quality monitoring
intensively process oriented programme, a primarily by the people,
system for multi-level quality, process, financial since the grants are meant
and outcome is needed. Such a system has for the local bodies and
already been successfully established for power given to people
significant number of programmes such as through the Gram/Area
MGNREGA, PMGSY, Drinking Water and Sabhas to propose and
Sanitation, Integrated Watershed Development monitor the specific
Programme etc. This monitoring mechanism works. The World Bank
should be established by technically competent evaluation of BRGF has

137
1 2 3

organisations such as C-DAC, ANTRIX found the quality of

Corporation (ISRO), ECIL, NIC, TCS, etc. the works taken up
NIRD would propose draft criteria and method- under BRGF generally
ology for purposeful monitoring. Based upon very good.
which MoPR would establish monitoring unit However, we would
for IT based monitoring. welcome from NIRD,
criteria and methodology
for professional
monitoring.

2.5 Since the purpose of the BRGF is to fill the gaps The Scheme gives
in developmental infrastructure, it is necessary discretion to the States
to identify the level of development of different for identifying the norms
Blocks and give priority to the bottom one-third for distribution of the
of the Blocks for investment under the Grant, district entitlements
to fill all the existing gaps within a given time- among the various local
period. Similarly, identification of backward bodies.
Gram Panchayats can also be undertaken This suggestion would be
wherever feasible as already done in West included in the BRGF
Bengal and Maharashtra. Guidelines.

2.6 A National Portal on Basic Indicators of MoPR has already

Development should be created by the Ministry developed such a portal
of Panchayati Raj. titled "PRI Profiler",
wherein States are
required to populate the
data on 8 indicators.

2.7 The e-Panchayats programme of MoPR, We agree and would

Computerization Programme of MoRD having pursue with DoRD.
allocation of Rs. 1300 crore and Panchayat
Ghar component of Bharat Nirman Rajeev
Gandhi Sewa Kendra should be dovetailed for
computerization of the Local Bodies.

2.8 The allocation should be viewed over a period We agree.

of 5 years and not for a year alone. For
completion of schemes/projects under BRGF
must have a long term perspective. The projects
taken up should be given sufficient time for
their completion whenever this involves more

138
1 2 3

than one year time. The Committee strongly

urges the extension of BRGF in 12th Plan
period keeping in view the long term
perspective for the programme. This will
ensure completion of schemes/projects.

2.9 The process of release needs to be simplified. MoPR has made several
The Districts will plan and indicate a sector and changes in the procedure
scheme-wise requirement of funds, before the for expeditious release of
beginning of the financial year. This will funds. States have been
become the basis for the release of funds. urged repeatedly to
submit this District Plans
timely.

2.10 There should be some incentive for expenditure The EFC Note on
incurred within or before time. Likewise there restructuring of BRGF
ought to be a disincentive for late, tardy or poor has sought for re-
utilization of funds. The disincentive could allocation of Develop-
come in a number of ways such as losing a part ment Grant during the
of the funds; requiring the State to do an year, based on the
additional exercise before further release etc. performance. As for the
However, it may be mentioned that the quality quality of expenditure,
of the expenditure and the outcome of the this is to be ensured by
investment will need to be carefully assessed the State Governments
before arriving at the incentive or disincentive. through (a) Quality
Monitoring Systems and
(b) Social Audit through
Gram Sabhas.

2.11 There is need for close convergence between In fact BRGF intends to
BRGF and other Livelihood Programmes of the promote cross-sectoral,
Government. Sectoral Planning for livelihoods decentralised plans,
should be under one umbrella planning process. including livelihood.
There should be one Integrated Livelihood Plan
for the whole District.

3.1 Considering the strengths and weaknesses MoPR has not found any
of the existing NCBF and the features of significant problem with
the NCDF proposed by Sub-Committee on the NCBF, nor has
Capacity Building and Convergence, a National any State or the World
Capabilities Development Framework may be Bank evaluation stated
prepared, jointly, by MoPR and MoRD. MoPR so. MoPR has been

139
1 2 3

and MoRD may adopt a common strategy for interacting with MoRD,
capabilities development including pooling up MoUD and DoPT
funds and release of these funds. (Training Division) on
various aspects of
training and capacity
building such as training
needs analysis, pooling
of training materials and
training infrastructure etc.
A Standing Committee
including MoRD, MoPR
etc. has also been set up
for the purpose.

3.2 The revised framework would emphasise the As above.

upgradation of capabilities and competence
of individuals (elected and appointed),
measures for effectiveness of organisational
arrangements and strengthening of institution,
adoption of appropriate policy instruments and
promotion of conducive socio-economic
environment.

3.3 It is suggested that the term "Capabilities The NCBF in its

Development" (CD) be used in all places expanded form is the
instead of 'training' or 'capacity building'. The National Capability
proposed term will capture the comprehensive Building Framework.
nature of the efforts that are necessary. The distinction between
"Building" and
"Development" may
perhaps not be given too
much significance. The
need appears to be giving
effect to the NCBF with
full commitment by the
States and the UTs.

3.4 The revised NCDF may be taken up for As above.

implementation, on a priority basis in all BRGF
Districts.

3.5 Since the requirements for BRGF Districts The proposals mooted by
themselves may be large, MoPR and MoRD MoPR for launching the

140
1 2 3

may consider and take early steps to make Panchayat Sashaktikaran

proposal for capabilities development for Abhiyan amply address
assistance from international bodies like the this need. However, we
World Bank (which have already studied BRGF would also request DEA
districts) or the UNDP or UN-Habitat (which for WB/UNDP funding
has done considerable work in leadership for the same.
training).

3.6 The Capabilities Development effort should MoPR has initiated

begin with an assessment of needs as regards action in this regard, in
individuals and institutions. As the needs may collaboration with MoRD
be vary from district to district. District specific and DoPT (Training
Capabilities Development programme may be Division).
evolved within the next one year in all BRGF
districts.

3.7 Without waiting for the internationally supported We agree.

project to be finalised the above efforts
could be taken up by MoPR and MoRD by
constituting a small appropriate team for each
District, in consultation with State Government
concerned. The Capabilities Development
programme may include the establishment of
District Capabilities Development Centre with
adequate funds and staff.

3.8 With the vast funds available for rural It would be better to
development, MoRD may take steps to further rename NIRD as NIP
strengthen and transform NIRD, strengthen & RD, with concomitant
SIRDs using innovative methods where changes in its
necessary; and establish an ETC in each district composition and
(initially ensuring they are starting in BRGF mandate.
districts). It is suggested that NIRD may
prepare a proposal for development of the
Centre for Panchayati Raj in NIRD as Centre
of Excellence for capabilities development of
PRI functionaries and strengthening of these
institutions. The proposal may envisage the
role to be played by NIRD with the help of all
the 28 SIRDs and 89 Extension Training
Centres in the country as also other district level
and sub-district level institutions.

141
1 2 3

3.9 Further, a strong and active network of We agree. MoPR has

other reputed training institutions and NGOs developed an online
should also be established and supported with portal http://pri-
resources and material. Twinning some of resources.in to create
these institutions/organisations with a single a virtual network of
institution of repute will help augment the training institutions,
faculty and training facilities available. training materials and
resource persons.

3.10 In the Capabilities Development programme, These aspects are

the training of elected and appointed function- covered by the NCBF.
aries should be comprehensive covering not
only the techniques of planning and implemen-
tation but also the skills for the leadership,
conflict resolution and enlistment of community
participation.

3.11 In order to secure synergy and effective capabilities This is a pragmatic

development efforts, especially at the State, suggestion and MoPR has
District and Sub-District Levels, it would be initiated the following
desirable that the efforts of several Union action:
Government Ministries are coalesced for strong
faculty support, training related infrastructure a. A Standing Committee
and training methodologies. Initially the has been set up
Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Ministry of Rural to coordinate the
Development including the Departments of activities of MoPR,
Land Resources, Drinking Water and Sanitation MoRD, MoUD and
could combine their efforts so that the Institutions DoPT in the field
and programme support to the capabilities of capability
development framework at all levels is provided development.
with greater professionalism and continuity. b. The NCBF, which is
Empirical evidence further indicates that the anchor framework
arrangements for cross visits of people, people for the BRGF and
to people contacts and grassroots level training RGSY, has made
activists regarding best practices for institutions adequate provision for
and capabilities development have proved alternative learning
successful in reaching out to large number of methodologies.
stake holders and functionaries. Some of these
methodologies have been successfully used by
Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (AP),
MYRADA, PRADHAN, PRIA etc. they

142
1 2 3

deserve to be integrated into the capabilities

development arrangement.

4.1 Having played an important role in catalysing MoPR has prepared a

the formation of DPCs in all States, MoPR Scheme for strengthen-
should take the process further by leveraging ing the planning process
the appropriate composition and structure of at the national, State, sub-
DPCs as well as the process of decentralised State levels. The proposal
planning (as discussed in this report). In this is currently under inter-
matter also MoPR may combine its efforts with ministerial consultations.
that of MoRD which can have greater leverage MoPR would work with
with State Governments. MoRD to strengthen the
process further.

4.2 The guidelines issued by the Planning Commis- We agree. This recom-
sion for the preparation of District Planning mendation is being taken
should be reiterated. MoPR may urge the up with the Planning
Planning Commission that it should insist that Commission.
the draft state plan proposals every year for the
annual plan discussions should be accompanied
by the required material on District Plans and
that there should be a separate working group
for this until the process gets stabilised.

4.3 The guidelines for implementation of CSSs and We agree. MoPR has
planning to be prepared for these schemes at urged upon the Planning
present are narrowly confined to the departmen- Commission to enforce
tal purposes. The MoPR and Planning Commis- the guidelines relating to
sion should take the initiative to ensure that integrated decentralised
these guidelines are in conformity with the planning. Now MoPR has
requirements and the purpose of the District decided to undertake
Level Plans. It should be ensured that the preparation of perspective
scheme-based guidelines and plans are, as a plans for 250 BRGF
first step, integrated with the sectoral sub-plans districts through Technical
and thereafter fully coalesced with the District Support Institutions,
Plan. keeping in view the
experience of a similar
exercise done at the
launch of the BRGF
Programme in 2006-07.

143
1 2 3

4.4 MoPR and MoRD may jointly take steps to We agree.

catalyse the State Governments to have a
separate document in the State budget on
district plans as has already been done by a few
States.

4.5 MoPR may also urge the State Governments to We agree. While some
provide an untied portion of the State plan so States have been provid-
that DPCs will have some flexibility in working ing untied grants to the
out schemes and projects of local relevance. Panchayats, none provide
such grants to the DPCs.
The suggestion would get
its intent served only
when States undertake
preparation of integrated
district and sub-district
plans in true spirit, for
which MoPR has been
seeking pivotal action /
lead from the Planning
Commission.

4.6 While allocation of untied funds, in full, with We agree. Planning

indicators of more important sectors would be Commission need to drive
the ideal way of financing the district plan, this. This suggestion is
taking the reality of existence of large number in line with the scheme of
of Central and State Government schemes, planning under the BRGF
DPCs should be encouraged to pool the Guidelines.
resources together. The pooled resources will
form, along with internal resources and people/
community contributions, the resource enve-
lope that will be available to the DPC for
preparing the district plan. In this exercise also,
priority may be given to BRGF districts, so that
BRGF release of funds are used as a flexible
and supplementary source and not as separate
scheme in itself.

4.7 The complex exercise of preparing district plan We agree. MoPR has
in the context of multiple interventions can be been highlighting upon
facilitated to a great extent by the use of ICT the States, MoRD and the

144
1 2 3

software as provided by Plan Plus and similar Planning Commission,

other packages mentioned in the report. the benefits of adoption
of the Plan Plus.

5.1 As 'convergence' is critical for efficient use of We agree. MoPR has

resources, avoidance of waste and for ensuring brought this need to the
the desired output and outcomes of programmes, notice of the Planning
MoPR and MoRD — based on their experience Commission on various
with BRGF and convergence initiatives of occasions. As for MoRD,
MGNREGA — may urge upon the Planning an advisory has been
Commission to adopt 'convergence' as a high issued by MoPR and
priority implementation strategy. MoRD for such
convergence. Effective
convergence at sub-
district levels requires
disclosure of the resource
envelopes to the local
bodies in respect of
various schemes and
programmes.

5.2 Having done this, the Planning Commission We agree. It would make
may be urged to constitute a committee or team huge difference in plan-
to scrutinise all CSSs guidelines for schemes ning, implementation and
implemented at local level. Objective should be outcomes of the CSSs/
to bring about as much commonality as possible ACAs.
regarding State level nodal agencies, planning
process, approval, Centre-State contribution
ratio, subsidies, role of Local Government,
audit mechanism including social audit etc. The
overarching objective should be that the guide-
lines are in consonance with the principles of
subsidiarity and decentralised planning. In this,
the local Committees to be constituted under
various CSSs guidelines should be integrated
with standing/functional Committees at different
levels of the Local Government. There should
be the Committees of the Local Government.

5.3 While approaching the Planning Commission to We agree. For this to

promote the convergence, MoPR and MoRD happen, MoRD may en-
should ensure active convergence between RD force BRGF Planning
programmes and BRGF. Process for RD
Programmes.

145
1 2 3

5.4 MoPR and MoRD together should catalyse the As above.

convergence of their programmes at local level
with other livelihood programmes of ministry
regarding natural resource management (land
and water related programmes).

5.5 As in other cases, the exercises in convergence We agree. Such conver-

may also begin in BRGF districts first. The gence is the essence of
process may be started first with convergence BRGF Guidelines. How-
of BRGF, MGNREGA, livelihood programmes ever, true convergence
of other ministries relating to land and water can come only from the
and other flagship programmes. If this could be GP/village level and
achieved in the next two years, the process can upwards. For this,
be extended to all other programmes thereafter, disclosure in advance of
in time-bound manner. the resource envelops at
village, block and district
levels is sine qua non.

5.6 The process of convergence will be made easier We agree. MoPR vide its
if electronic transfer of funds is done in the case letter No. N11019/125/
of all CSSs and State Government schemes and 2009-Pol.1 dt. 23.02.2010
programmes. The electronic transfer of funds has proposed a simple
from ministry to State Government and from the but robust scheme to the
State Government to district, sub-districts and Union Ministries and
Panchayats would enable simultaneously States for electronic
monitoring and scrutiny. transfer and tracking of
funds and Financial
Management System.
Planning Commission/
M/o Finance may advise
all Ministries/States for
its adoption.

5.7 MoPR may encourage States—starting with We agree and would work
BRGF districts — to promote the need and alongwith MoRD to
importance of convergence through appropriate implement this.
campaigns, adoption of locally relevant
communication techniques like folk plays,
dances in order to ensure community
involvement. Such involvement enables the
community to view development as a
comprehensive exercise and not as a mere
collection of schemes. It will also encourage
ownership of development, which will, in turn,
make them more committed to maintenance.

146
 ANNEXURE X

F.No. PEO/16(98)/2010/TC
Planning Commission
Programme Evaluation Organisation

Room No. 452, Yojana Bhavan

Sansad Marg, New Delhi
Dated: 24.2.2010

Subject: Constitution of Consultancy Evaluation-cum-Monitoring Committee

(CEMC) for monitoring the Evaluation Study of the Scheme of Backward
Districts Initiative (BDI) & Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF)

The Development Evaluation Advisory Committee (DEAC) in the meeting

held on 11th November, 2009 assigned the evaluation of the scheme of Backward
Districts Initiative (BDI) & Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF) to Programme
Evaluation Organisation.

With the approval of competent authority, PEO has constituted a

Consultancy Evaluation-cum-Monitoring Committee (CEMC) for monitoring the
study as below:

1. Dr. Rohini Nayyar Chairperson

Former Advisor, Planning Commission, New Delhi

2. Dr. Sudhir Krishna, Additional Secretary, Member

Ministry of Panchayati Raj

3. Shri P.K. Kesavan, Director (BRGF), Member

Ministry of Panchayati Raj Institutions,
New Delhi

4. Adviser, Multi Level Planning (MLP) Division, Member

Planning Commission

5. Adviser, Rural Development Division, Member

Planning Commission

6. Smt. Ratna Anjan Jena, Adviser (PEO), Member

Planning Commission

7. Ms. Indu Patnaik, Deputy Adviser, MLP Division Member

Planning Commission

147
 8. Dr. R.C. Dey, Director (PEO-TC), Member
Planning Commission

9. Ms. Nandita Mishra, Director (PEO) Convenor

Planning Commission

The Terms and Reference of the Committee are:

(i) To provide guidance on preparation of study design including the

objectives of the study, methodology, instruments of observation etc.

(ii) To guide in Shortlisting Institution for outsourcing of the study.

(iii) To provide guidance on identification and development of appropriate

input, activity, output, outcome and impact indicators for assessment
of the performance of the implementation of the scheme.

(iv) To ensure the quality of data collection, organisation of the collected

data, analysis of the data, drafting of the report etc.

The Committee may co-opt any additional Member(s) as and when required.

The non-official member of the Committee will be paid TA/DA by the

Planning Commission as per the SR 190 (a) for attending meetings of the
Committee. The official members would, however, be entitled to payment of TA/
DA from their respective organisation to which they belong.

Sd/-
(Nandita Mishra)
Director (PEO)
Telefax: 23096745
To,

The Chairman and all the Members of CEMC

Copy:

PS to Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission

PS to Member (AS)
PPS to Secretary, Planning Commission
PS to Senior Adviser, Rural Development Division
PS to Senior Adviser (PEO)
PS to Adviser (PEO)

148
 ANNEXURE X1
Criteria for Inter se Distribution of BRGF Fund across States

Sl. State Rural:Urban Inter se Urban Inter se Rural Inter se Three tiers Across Blocks Across GPs
No. (GP:IP:ZP)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Andhra Pradesh Population Population Population and SC/ST 50:30:20 Population and SC/ST Population and SC/ST
Population Population Population

2. Arunachal Pradesh One crore to Urban to NA(info. not available) Equally 50:30:20 Equal (Rs.26.15 lakh Equal (Rs.4.12 lakh
Urban areas. Basis not each) each)
clear.
Population x per capita
3. Assam Population Population x per capita Population x per capita 50:30:20 Population allocation
allocation allocation

4. Bihar Population Population Equally 70:20:10 Population Equally

5. Chhattisgarh Population As per work list As per work list As per work list As per work list As per work list
approved by DPC approved by DPC approved by DPC approved by DPC approved by DPC

6. Haryana 80:20 as per TFC As per work list As per work list 75:10:15 As per work list As per work list
recommendations approved by DPC approved by DPC approved by DPC approved by DPC.
Normative formula
abandoned due to small
amount reaching GPs.

7. Himachal Pradesh As per work list As per work list As per work list 50:30:20 As per work list As per work list
approved by DPC approved by DPC approved by DPC approved by DPC approved by DPC

149
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

150
8. Gujarat Population As per work list As per work list Each tier gets As per work list As per work list
approved by the approved by the minimum 20% of approved by the approved by the
DPC DPC allocation. Other DPC DPC
criterion is population

9. Jammu and 10% to Urban areas NA NA 50:30:20 NA NA

Kashmir

10. Jharkhand As per work list As per work list As per work list As per work list As per work list As per work list
approved by DPC approved by the DPC approved by the DPC approved by the DPC approved by the DPC approved by the DPC

11. Karnataka 80:20 As per work list As per work list As per work list As per work list As per work list
approved by the DPC approved by the DPC approved by the DPC approved by the DPC approved by the DPC.
Emphasis on SC/ST
colonies

12. Kerala Non SC/ST Population Weighted index (see Weighted index (see 50:40:10 Weighted index (see Weighted index (see
annex-1) annex-1) annex-1) annex-1)

13. Madhya Pradesh As per work list As per work list As per work list 65:22:1 As per work list As per work list
approved by the DPC approved by the DPC approved by the DPC approved by the DPC approved by the DPC

14. Maharashtra Population Population Population 48:28:26 Population Population

(Ahmednagar)
14:11:75 (Narmada)

15. Manipur No urban component Population Population Not Applicable Population Population and 25%
except Chandel which retained at the District
has one small level for backward GPs
municipality. Fund
allocated as per
population.
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
16. Meghalaya As per work list As per work list As per work list As per work list As per work list As per work list
approved by the DPC approved by the DPC approved by the DPC approved by the DPC approved by the DPC approved by the DPC

17. Mizoram Population As per work list As per work list

approved by the DPC approved by the DPC

18. Nagaland HH% (tax paying

households) across
State

19. Orissa 60:40 as per revised 15% SC/ST As per work list 50:30:20 As per work list As per work list
guidelines population, 85% GEN approved by the DPC approved by the DPC approved by the DPC

20. Punjab 80:20 on the basis of Further distribution as Further distribution as Further distribution as Further distribution as Further distribution as
population per list of projects per list of projects per list of projects per list of projects per list of projects
approved by the DPC approved by the DPC approved by the DPC approved by the DPC approved by the DPC

21. Rajasthan Population Population 50% population, 50% None None 50% population, 50%
BPL population BPL population

22. Sikkim 20% tribal fund. Rest As per approved work Each District (North, Not applicable As per work list As per work list
is divided in the ratio list South, East, West) gets
of 80:20 between 1/4th of total allocation
urban and rural

23. Tamil Nadu Population Population 20% District 20:30:50 Population Population
\ Panchayat, out of
remaining 80%, 10 lakh
\ to each Panchayat
Union, and 50% on the
basis of SC/ST
population

151
152
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

24. Tripura Population and Population Population 50:30:20 Population Population

necessity

25. Uttar Pradesh As per work list As per work list As per work list 70:10:20 As per work list As per work list
approved by the approved by the approved by the DPC approved by the DPC approved by the DPC
DPC DPC

26. Uttarakhand NA NA NA NA NA NA

27. West Bengal Population Population As per weighted index 60:20:20 50% Population and Marginal non-workers
on the basis of 2nd 50% on weighted and female literacy.
SFC recommendations index - Annexure-2
(see annexure-2)
 ANNEXURE XII
Dr. Sudhir Krishna, Ministry of Panchayati Raj
Additional Secretary, Government of India
Tel.No.011-24122936 6th Floor, Samrat Hotel, Kautilya Marg
lR;eso t;rs
Fax No. 011-24122943 Chanakya Puri, New Delhi-110 021
Email<skrishna@nic.in>
D.O. Lr. No.N-11019/298/2009/BRGF 7th October, 2009
Sub: Annual Plans for 2010-11 for BRGF.
Dear
The BRGF is now in the 4th year of implementation. Experience has shown
that most States submit the Action Plans for the Development Grant and Capacity
Building Grant only during the later half of the financial year. This leads to
inadequate expenditure and poor programme performance. Now the Ministry has
decided to treat the BRGF Grants as lapsable, which makes it imperative to
prepare and approve the Annual Plans well before commencement of the financial
year, so that the first instalment for 2010-11 could be released in the first week
of April 2010.
Accordingly, I request you to prepare the Action Plans for 2010-11 for the
Development Grant and me Capacity Building Grant under BRGF in a manner
that the Plans duly approved by DPC and HPC are received in the Ministry by
31st January, 2010. The Annual Plans should be to the extent of 150% of the
Annual Entitlements and should include works of the Action Plans of 2008-09/
2009-10 that are likely to remain incomplete by 31.3.2010. A note on the role
of DPC/HPC is enclosed as Annexure.
Kindly prepare a calendar for (a) the Gram/Ward Sabha meetings;
(b) approvals of the PRIs and ULBs; (c) consolidation by DPC; and (d) approval
by HPC in a manner that would make it possible for the approved Plans to reach
the MoPR latest by 31st January, 2010. The calendar so worked out by you may
kindly be sent to me by fax/e-mail by 21st, October 2009.
With regards,
Yours sincerely,
Encl: As above.
Sd/-
(Sudhir Krishna)
Shri M.V.P.C.Sastry,
Principal Secretary,
Panchayati Raj & Rural Development Department,
Government of Andhra Pradesh,
A.P.Secretariat,
Hyderabad-500 022

153
 Annexure of Annexure-12

Role of DPC/HPC in approval of BRGF Plans

The District Perspective/Annual Plans for the Development Grant

component of BRGF are, in effect, an aggregation of the Plans prepared by the
Panchayats and the Municipalities of the District, who are the final authority for
the purpose. The DPC/HPC cannot either add or substitute any work. The task
for the DPC is (a) to ensure that the Plans submitted by the PRIs/ULBs of the
District have been prepared in the prescribed participative manner and approved
by the PRIs/ULBs concerned; (b) communicate the resource envelopes of the
various Sectoral Schemes/Programmes to the PRIs/ULBs with a view to avoid
duplication and bring about synergy; and (c) to aggregate/consolidate the Plans
prepared by the various PRls/ULBs into the Draft District Plan. Similarly, the HPC
has to lay down the formula for apportionment of the District's annual entitlement
(raised to 150% for preparation of the Annual Plan) among the PRIs and ULBs,
and to ensure that resource envelopes of various sectoral schemes are
communicated to the various Districts, well before they undertake the exercise
for preparation of their respective Plans. The DPC/HPC should also ensure that
the District Plans are prepared in conformity with the Programme Guidelines,
including regarding the SC/ST component. If the HPC finds any work proposed
by any of the PRIs/ULBs to be in violation of the Guidelines, it should cull out
such works and (a) approve the remaining part of the Action Plan and forward
the same, to MoPR and (b) ask the PRI/ULB concerned to prepare and submit
a list of substitute works by following the Guidelines. In no case can a DPC/HPC
either add or substitute a work.

As regards the Capacity Building component, tile HPC has the full power
to approve the Perspective/Annual Plans and also to revise the same at a later
date, for adequate reasons.

*****

154
 ANNEXURE XIII
RASHTRIYA GRAM SWARAJ YOJANA
GRANTS RELEASED DURING 2009-10
(TRAINING & CAPACITY BUILDING COMPONENT)

Sl.No. State/NGO Component Grant Released

11. Andhra Pradesh Training 622.00

12. Assam Resource Centre 237.00
13. Bihar Training 328.00
14. Chhattisgarh Training 192.00
15. Himachal Pradesh Training 106.76
Resource Centre 382.50
16. Jharkhand Training 15.92
17. Karnataka Training 239.00
18. Kerala Training 58.71
19. Maharashtra Training 339.00
10. Manipur Training 210.00
11. Tamil Nadu Training 236.00
12. Tripura Training 82.00
13. Uttarakhand Training 207.00
14. Uttar Pradesh Training 94.00
15. West Bengal Training 189.98
16. CRD, Orissa Training 377.32
17. NIRD, Hyderabad Training 11.08
Total 3928.27
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT
18. Karnataka Panchayat Ghar 100.00
19. Manipur Panchayat Ghar 94.19
20. Rajasthan Panchayat Ghar 300.00
Total 494.19

Grand Total 4422.46

155
 APPENDIX I

COMMITTEE ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT (2010-2011)

EXTRACTS OF THE MINUTES OF THE THIRD SITTING OF THE

COMMITTEE HELD ON THURSDAY, THE 6 JANUARY, 2011

The Committee sat from 1500 hrs. to 1730 hrs. in Committee Room
No. ‘B’, Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

PRESENT

Shrimati Sumitra Mahajan — Chairperson

MEMBERS

Lok Sabha
2. Dr. Pulin Bihari Baske
3. Shri Kunvarjibhai Mohanbhai Bavaliya
4. Shri Sanjay Dhotre
5. Shri H.D. Kumaraswamy
6. Shri Govind Chandra Naskar
7. Shri Rakesh Pandey
8. Shri P.L. Punia
9. Shri A. Venkatarami Reddy
10. Shri Navjot Singh Sidhu
11. Shri Jagdanand Singh
12. Shri Makansingh Solanki
13. Shri Kodikkunnil Suresh

Rajya Sabha
14. Shri Ganga Charan
15. Sardar Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa
16. Dr. Ram Prakash
17. Shrimati Maya Singh
18. Shri Mohan Singh
19. Dr. (Smt.) Kapila Vatsyayan

156
 SECRETARIAT

1. Shri A. Louis Martin — Joint Secretary

2. Shri Shiv Singh — Director
3. Shri A.K. Shah — Additional Director
4. Shri Raju Srivastava — Deputy Secretary

2. The Chairperson welcomed the members to the sitting of the

Committee and greeted them on the occasion of ‘New Year’. There were four
Memoranda regarding draft action taken Reports *** consideration.

3. The Committee first took up for consideration the following

memoranda one by one:—

(i) *** *** *** ***

(ii) *** *** *** ***

(iii) *** *** *** ***

(iv) Memorandum No. 10 regarding consideration and adoption of

draft action taken Report on the recommendations contained
in the Sixth Report of the Committee on Demands for Grants
(2010-11) relating to Ministry of Panchayati Raj.

(v) *** *** *** ***

4. *** *** *** ***

5. *** *** *** ***

6. The Committee decided that draft Report at Sl.No. (iv) of para 3

above may be considered later.

7. *** *** *** ***

8. A verbatim record of the proceedings has been kept.

The Committee then adjourned.

***Relevant portions of the Minutes not related to the subject have been kept separately.

157
 APPENDIX II

COMMITTEE ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT (2010-2011)

EXTRACTS OF THE MINUTES OF THE FIFTH SITTING OF THE

COMMITTEE HELD ON MONDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY, 2011

The Committee sat from 1500 hrs. to 1730 hrs. in Committee Room
No. ‘C’, Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

PRESENT

Shrimati Sumitra Mahajan — Chairperson

MEMBERS

Lok Sabha

2. Shri Kunvarjibhai Mohanbhai Bavalia

3. Shri H.D. Kumaraswamy
4. Shri Raghuvir Singh Meena
5. Shri P.L. Punia
6. Shri Jagdish Sharma
7. Shri Jagdanand Singh
8. Shri Kodikkunnil Suresh
9. Shrimati Usha Verma

Rajya Sabha

10. Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar

11. Dr. Ram Prakash
12. Shrimati Maya Singh
13. Shri Mohan Singh
14. Miss Anusuiya Uikey
15. Dr. (Smt.) Kapila Vatsyayan

158
 SECRETARIAT

1. Shri Brahm Dutt — Joint Secretary

2. Shri Shiv Singh — Director

3. Shri Raju Srivastava — Deputy Secretary

2. *** *** *** ***

3. *** *** *** ***

4. After detailed discussions, the Committee, thereafter considered

*** 10 on Draft Action Taken Reports on action taken by the Government
on recommendations contained in *** Sixth Reports of the Committee on
Demands for Grants (2010-11) of the *** *** Ministry of Panchayati Raj
respectively, without any modifications.

5. A verbatim record of the proceedings has been kept.

The Committee then adjourned.

***Relevant portions of the Minutes not related to the subject have been kept separately.

159
 APPENDIX III

[Vide Para 4 of the Introduction]

ANALYSIS OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT ON

THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE SIXTH REPORT
OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT
(FIFTEENTH LOK SABHA)

I. Total number of recommendations 31

II. Recommendations that have been accepted 20

by the Government:
Para Nos. 2.5, 3.9, 3.16, 3.17, 4.10, 4.25, 4.29,
4.37, 4.42, 4.62, 4.63, 4.78, 4.85, 5.17, 5.20,
5.35, 5.48, 5.49, 5.50 and 5.55

Percentage to the total recommendations (64.5%)

III. Recommendations which the Committee 4

do not desire to pursue in view of the
Government’s replies:
Para No.: 4.79, 5.16, 5.18 and 5.19

Percentage to total recommendations (12.9%)

IV. Recommendations in respect of which 1

replies of the Government have not been
accepted by the Committee:
Para Nos. 4.50

Percentage to total recommendations (3.2%)

V. Recommendations in respect of which final 6

replies of the Government are still awaited:
Para Nos. 4.5, 4.36, 4.54, 4.80, 5.26 and 5.27

Percentage to total recommendations (19.35%)

160
“All Parliamentary Publications including DRSC Reports are
available on sale at the Sales Counter, Reception, Parliament House
(Tel. Nos. 23034726, 23034495, 23034496), Agents appointed
by Lok Sabha Secretariat and Publications Division, Ministry
of Information and Broadcasting, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi (Tel. Nos. 24367260, 24365610) and their outlets. The said
information is available on website ‘www.parliamentofindia.nic.in’.

The Souvenir Items with logo of Parliament are also available

at Sales Counter, Reception, Parliament House, New Delhi.
The Souvenir items with Parliament Museum logo are available
for sale at Souvenir Shop (Tel. No. 23035323), Parliament Museum,
Parliament Library Building, New Delhi. List of these items are
available on the website mentioned above.”