Madras High Court rules no right to permanent job via MGNREGA, says schemes must evolve with tech

“The purpose of such an arrangement need not be to confer any right to permanent employment. The distinction between engagement under a welfare scheme and appointment to public services would continue to remain. At the same time, the availability of labour under the MGNREG Scheme may be channelled towards activities that directly contribute to agricultural production and rural economic growth,” the court said on June 22.

Noting that a task which used to require several workers over many days can often be completed by a trained machine operator within a fraction of the time nowadays, the order posed a question whether labour should continue to be deployed predominantly for activities that can now be effectively undertaken through mechanisation, or whether a portion of such labour can be redirected towards sectors where there exists a genuine and continuing demand for human effort.

Justice B Pugalendhi noted that the core objective of the scheme, among other things, is to strengthen the livelihood resource base of the poor.

‘Can be utilised in rural government institution’

Acknowledging the government’s stand, the court said it raises certain larger questions, such as whether the workers under the MGNREG Scheme can be engaged for years together in a rural Animal Husbandry institution for carrying out recurring activities required for its day-to-day functioning; it would indicate the existence of a genuine and continuing requirement for labour.

The order noted that it would also suggest that the Scheme is being utilised for meeting manpower requirements in certain rural institutions, and agriculture presents one such sector.

Highlighting that the farmers across the state frequently complain of an acute shortage of labour for agricultural operations, the order emphasised that if MGNREG scheme workers can be utilised for meeting the labour requirements in a rural government institution, it may be worthwhile to examine whether a suitable framework can also be devised for productive engagement in the agricultural sector.

It stated that such a model could also involve sharing the wage burden between the Government and the farmer, thereby ensuring employment for workers, addressing the labour shortages faced by farmers and reducing the overall burden on the public exchequer.

Welfare programmes must evolve: Order

Drawing attention to the more elaborate policy deliberation on the issue, the court said that the practical modalities, eligibility conditions, safeguards against misuse, extent of mechanisation, ensuring protection of workers’ interests and monitoring mechanisms are matters that would fall within the domain of policy makers and experts in the field.

“However, the circumstances brought to the notice of this Court suggest that the issue may deserve a fresh examination,” it added.

Justice Pugalendhi noted that the public welfare programmes must evolve with changing economic conditions, technological advancements and ground realities. He said that if technology can efficiently perform certain categories of work, and if there exists a simultaneous shortage of labour in other productive sectors such as agriculture, it may be worthwhile for the policymakers to explore whether available human resources can be utilised in a manner that better serves the interests of workers, farmers and the rural economy as a whole.

Case of regularisation of MGNREG worker

The petitioner was working as a Scavenger in the sanctioned vacancy of the Veterinary Hospital in Alakarai in Trichy district, and placed in the time scale of pay considering the nature of work and long period.

The petitioner claimed that she was engaged in 2016 and has been allowed to continue working at the same place for the past nine years. She claimed that the Block Development Officer has proposed to regularise her services; however, it has not been considered.

Therefore, the petitioner has submitted a representation and has filed the petition seeking the issuance of a mandamus to absorb her as a Scavenger in the sanctioned vacancy of the hospital.

Appearing for the state, the Additional Advocate General Veerakathiravan disputed the petitioner’s claim that she is working as a Scavenger in the hospital and on instructions, and also by referring to the letter dated December 20, 2021 of the assistant medical officer, veterinary hospital, Alakarai, submitted that the petitioner has been engaged temporarily and she has been paid under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA). Therefore, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to regularisation.

‘Continuance can’t create right to regularisation’

• The MGNREG Scheme was launched in the year 2006, aiming to provide guaranteed employment for 100 days in a financial year to any rural household to do unskilled manual work.
• The core objective of the scheme, among other things, is to strengthen the livelihood resource base of the poor.
• The materials placed before this Court indicate that the petitioner is stated to have been engaged for several years and paid under the MGNREG Scheme.
• The manner in which such engagement came to be continued for such a long period has not been explained before this Court.
• However, the present case has brought to light an issue which may deserve consideration at the policy level.
• The petitioner claims to have been engaged as a Scavenger in a Veterinary Hospital for several years.
• The stand of the respondents is that she was engaged only temporarily under the MGNREG Scheme and that such engagement does not confer any right to seek regularisation or permanent absorption.

• As the claim for permanent appointment is concerned, the legal position is fairly settled. Ordinarily, appointments to public posts must be made through a duly constituted recruitment process so as to uphold the guarantee of equal opportunity enshrined under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
• Mere continuance of engagement, however long, cannot by itself create a right to regularisation where the initial entry was not through such a process. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought by the petitioner.