The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the removal of a contractual Field Assistant under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) noting that it was done without notice, without giving a hearing and without offering the alternative engagement contemplated under the applicable policy.

The issue arose after the petitioner failed to meet the prescribed person-days requirement. The Gram Panchayat was consequently downgraded from List-I to List-II, following which the petitioner could no longer continue as a Field Assistant.

Under the Field Assistant Human Resource Policy (FAHRP), a person engaged as a Field Assistant can no longer continue in that position in a Gram Panchayat after such downgrading. In such a situation, the policy contemplates an opportunity to work as a Senior Mate alternatively.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Balaji Medamalli observed that  the authorities were required to follow the applicable policy. The Court said:

“For the year 2020-2021, against the prescribed requirement of 7,500 persondays or more, the petitioner could generate only 5,488 person-days. Consequently, in terms of the circular issued by the Commissioner, the concerned Gram Panchayat was downgraded from List-I to List-II, as the person-days generated therein were more than 2,500 but less than 7,500. As a consequence of such reclassification, there was no sanctioned position of Field Assistant in the said Gram Panchayat, and the petitioner could not, therefore, continue as a Field Assistant. However, the policy contemplated the availability of a Senior Mate position in respect of such downgraded Gram Panchayats.

It is further evident from the impugned proceedings that, although reference has been made to an alleged offer to the petitioner to continue as a Senior Mate and to his alleged refusal to accept the same, no notice, communication, or other material has been placed on record to establish that such an offer was, in fact, made to the petitioner or that he had refused to accept the same.In the absence of any material substantiating the alleged offer and refusal, the said contention of the respondents cannot be accepted.”

The petitioner had been working as a Field Assistant under MGNREGS since 2006.

For 2020-21, the Gram Panchayat generated 5,488 person-days, against the prescribed requirement of 7,500 person-days or more.

Since the Panchayat failed to meet the prescribed requirement, it was moved from List-I to List-II. Consequent to the reclassification, the petitioner could no longer continue as a Field Assistant.

The applicable policy, however, contemplated an opportunity to work as a Senior Mate when a Gram Panchayat was downgraded in such circumstances.

Following the downgrade, the petitioner's salary was stopped without notice or an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court. Following the Court's intervention, the authorities issued proceedings citing his failure to achieve the prescribed person-days, which he challenged in the present case.

The petitioner attributed the shortfall to the COVID-19 pandemic, lockdown restrictions, the small size of the Gram Panchayat and the nature of crops cultivated in the area. He also relied on official recommendations in his favour, the absence of adverse social audit remarks and the subsequent generation of more than 7,500 person-days.

The respondents claimed that the petitioner had been offered the alternative position but had refused it. It was further submitted that the petitioner's engagement was contractual and subject to annual renewal based on achievement of the prescribed person-days.

The Court, however, found no notice, communication or other material showing that such an offer had actually been made to him.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had worked as a Field Assistant for more than 15 years. It considered his explanation for failing to meet the prescribed requirement, which was attributed to circumstances prevailing during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the first and second waves.

The Court accepted that the petitioner had failed to fulfil the prescribed person-days requirement and, following the downgrading of the Gram Panchayat, could not continue as a Field Assistant.

However, it found that his engagement was discontinued without notice, without affording him an opportunity of being heard and without offering him the alternative engagement as Senior Mate contemplated under the applicable policy.

It therefore set aside the proceedings discontinuing his engagement. The Court accordingly directed:

• The authorities shall consider the petitioner's case under the applicable policy and give him an opportunity to work as a Senior Mate in the concerned Gram Panchayat within two months.
• If the petitioner subsequently fulfils the prescribed person-days requirement, his case shall be considered for engagement as a Field Assistant.
• Such consideration shall be subject to availability of the post and fulfilment of the other applicable conditions.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed.

Case Title: M. Sankaraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Case No.: W.P. No. 4844 of 2023

Counsel for Petitioner: K. Venugopal Reddy

Counsel for Respondents: SPLC for NREGS (M.S.R. Chandra Murthy); GP for Services-IV

Click Here To Read/Download Order