MGNREGA मस्टर रोल, माप और भुगतान की जाँच
During a surprise inspection of a pond-desilting work under MGNREGA in a block of Sitapur, you examine the following records. The muster roll lists 55 workers (32 men, 23 women) for a 15-day period from 1 to 15 June, and aggregate attendance comes to 785 person-days after 40 absence-days. The notified unskilled wage rate is ₹240 per day. The sanctioned estimate is ₹2,84,400, of which material (tractor-trolley hire, dewatering pump, pipes) is ₹96,000 and labour is ₹1,88,400. The measurement book records the pit as 40 m × 25 m with an average depth of 1.2 m, but the running bill claims 1,240 cubic metres. Two entries trouble you. Sunita Devi is shown on this muster for 4 days on which she also appears on another worksite's muster in the same block. And the tractor-trolley hire vouchers are in the name of a firm owned by the Gram Pradhan's brother-in-law. The junior engineer has already signed the measurement book, and the Pradhan is pressing you to certify the bill before the financial year closes.
1. Check the labour–material ratio and the person-day arithmetic. Is the 60% unskilled-wage requirement satisfied, and what is the corrected position after the muster irregularity?
Read the worked answer
785 person-days × ₹240 = ₹1,88,400, which matches the labour figure in the estimate exactly, so the muster total and the wage rate are internally consistent. Labour share = 1,88,400 ÷ 2,84,400 = 66.3%; material share = 96,000 ÷ 2,84,400 = 33.8%. The requirement that unskilled wages be not less than 60% of the work cost is therefore met, and material is within the 40% ceiling.
After removing Sunita Devi's 4 duplicated person-days: 781 × ₹240 = ₹1,87,440, and the labour share becomes 1,87,440 ÷ (1,87,440 + 96,000) = 66.1% - still compliant. So the ratio is not the defect; the muster is.
The important judgement is that the ratio must be recomputed on the admissible cost, not copied from the estimate. The ₹960 deducted must be shown as a separate recovery entry in the bill; it cannot be netted silently against other workers' wages.
2. The bill claims 1,240 m³ against a measured 1,200 m³. How do you record this, and why does the junior engineer's signature not settle the matter?
Read the worked answer
40 × 25 × 1.2 = 1,200 m³. The bill claims 1,240 m³, an excess of 40 m³ or about 3.3%.
A signed measurement book is a record of what was measured; it is not a certificate that the arithmetic is correct. The junior engineer's signature does not cure an excess quantity, and a Lekhpal who certifies it becomes a party to an excess drawal of public funds.
Correct handling: enter the measured 1,200 m³ in your inspection note, request re-measurement in the presence of the mate and at least two labourers, and have the bill revised to the measured quantity before certification. If the difference arises because the pit has sloping sides, the right method is to apply the trapezoidal/prismoidal formula to top and bottom dimensions, not to add a lump sum. Because earthwork is paid per cubic metre, the 40 m³ excess converts directly into excess payment, so it must be quantified in money and reported, not merely mentioned.
3. What do you do about the duplicated attendance and the vouchers from the Pradhan's relative, given the pressure to pass the bill?
Read the worked answer
Do not certify the bill as it stands, and do not stay silent either - the objection must be a reasoned written note reaching the Programme Officer/BDO before the bill is passed.
On attendance: deduct the 4 person-days, record the finding in the inspection register and forward it for the social audit. The remaining wages of every worker, including Sunita Devi, must still be paid within the prescribed period; a worker's wage cannot be withheld for an official's muster error. Recovery, if any, is from the functionary responsible for the false entry.
On the material vouchers: there is no absolute bar on a Panchayat functionary's relative supplying material, but the Gram Panchayat resolution, quotation and receipt must satisfy the test of fair procurement. Refer the vouchers to the Gram Sabha/social audit and the block-level verification committee, and record the relationship in writing. Framing the objection in terms of conflict of interest and verifiability, rather than accusation, is what makes the note survive scrutiny.