Calcutta High Court Calls For Affidavits From Centre, State In Plea Over Payment Of Unemployment Allowance To MGNREGA Workers, Resumption Of Work

The Calcutta High Court has called for a response from the State and Central governments over a tiff in the release of funds, which led to the non-payment of several daily-wage labourers under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) in West Bengal.

A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Bivas Pattanayak was hearing a plea by the Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity (PBKMS), a trade union representing MGNREGA workers.

The Advocate General, appearing for the State Government, informed the Court that the state remains unable to implement MGNREGA due to a central government order dated 9th March 2022.

This order froze MGNREGA funds for West Bengal and instructed the state to comply with certain directives. Despite submitting over 20 Action Taken Reports in compliance with these directives and requesting the central government to lift the freeze, it was submitted that there has been no progress.

In response, Advocate Purbayan Chakraborty, representing PBKMS, argued that under the Act, the state government is obligated to provide employment under MGNREGA, irrespective of the central government's decision to release funds.

He stressed that disputes between the state and central governments cannot justify the withholding of work under the scheme, which directly affects the livelihoods of thousands of rural workers.

The High Court took note of these submissions and directed the central government to file a report addressing the state's claim of compliance through multiple Action Taken Reports.

On the issue of Unemployment Allowance, the Advocate General for the state contended that unless and until funds are sanctioned by the central government, payment of unemployment allowance would not arise. However, the Court expressed a prima facie view that this argument was untenable.

The Court pointed out that the distinction between the payment of wages and unemployment allowance is clear, and given that employment has not been provided for the past two years, the state government was liable to pay unemployment allowance.

Accordingly, the Court directed the state government to answer as to why a direction should not be issued for payment of unemployment allowance, and directed the central government to state why funds had not been released even after the state filing multiple action taken reports.

Case details: Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity & Anr. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.

Case No: WPA(P) 237 of 2023