Sign In / Register
Make This My Home Page | Feedback |RSS
You are here: IE »   Story

NREGS: Centre says no to more job days

  • Print
  • Mail This Article
  • Comments
  • Add to favorites
  • The UPA government has refused to raise the number of job days that it provides under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) though it would allow an extra 50 days employment in drought-hit regions on a case-to-case basis from a separate fund.

    Last month, the Empowered Group of Ministers (EGoM) decided that “up to 50 days of extra employment should be given in the drought affected areas from the National Calamity Contingency Fund (NCCF)” after the Ministry of Rural Development objected that the Act fixed the employment cap at 100 days.

    Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia had been pushing for a temporary raise in the number of job days to compensate rural India for income loss due to a poor monsoon in a large part of the country. But the proposal before the EGoM, headed by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, was “enhancement in the number of days of employment beyond 100 days under NREG”. The MoRD objected to an all-round increase as none of the states had provided more than 50 days of employment since it was started in February 2006.

    Ads by Google

    As a special dispensation, the ministry told the EGoM that a drought-affected state could approach the Centre for more money from NCCF for providing more working days in certain pockets provided it had exhausted the NREG limit there. The request would be subject to scrutiny by an inter-ministerial central team which would visit the spot and report for consideration of the High Level Committee headed by Finance Minister and comprising Home Minister, Agriculture Minister and Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, it said.

    NREGSBy: Varind | 21-Oct-2009 Reply | Forward NREGS is another exploitation of poorest of the poor. Those who get jobs, don't get paid in time and this fact has been shown by media. Only government employees in connivance with Panchayat heads are getting richer from NREGS. Therefore it is right time to review the scheme and adopt a method which really helps poor unemployed in rural areas instead keeping benefit with few and eyeing more on votes under the garb of NREGS.
    To be sensible is to be responsive to the poor and needy.By: CK Raju, Thrissur | 21-Oct-2009 Reply | Forward Poverty-redressal gets meaningless if issues are failed to be understood. Its true that the number of households who have completed 100 days of employment in a year are less. If that is the case then why is the ministry worried - increasing it to 200 would not leave a hole in its bag. The issue is why be deaf to the plea from the suffering households ? Why can't 100 days be guaranteed to every women or to every member in SC/ST or BPL families - at least ? They are the worst sufferers of this capitalistic system. That would be ultimate service to womanhood than arguing for 33% reservation in parliament. Parliament often works to the whims of markets. Why listen to pleas from the people who take huge advantage of the inegalitarian capitalistic or governance mechanism ? Let them increase their pay for hiring human labour ? If rich people want slave labour at their beck and call, then it is the problem of the rich. Governments should respond to the call of the poor, not to those of markets
    NREGS lootBy: Hero Vaz | 21-Oct-2009 Reply | Forward The NREGS is a failure and should be wound up to save further scheme funds from being looted by all and sundry.
    Post a Comment
    Name:
    Email:
    Title:
    Maximum characters allowed     
    Comment:
    TERMS OF USE:
    The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
    I agree to the terms of use.