____________________________________________________________________ LPA No.84/2025 1 S. No. 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through Virtual Mode) LPA No.84/2025 in WP(C) No.2332/2022 CM No.2766/2025 CM No.2767/2025 UT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH COMMISSIONER RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. S. S. Nanda, Sr. AAG. Vs. GIAN SINGH ...Respondent(s) Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE ORDER 13.05.2025 CM No.2766/2025 For the reasons stated in the application the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application disposed of. LPA No.84/2025 CM No.2767/2025 1. The respondent was assigned the work of upgradation of ‘Tractor road and Construction of Culvert (H-Pipeline)’ near village Korga Sohal, Block Dansal, Jammu, which the respondent executed to the satisfaction of the appellants, duly substantiated by work completion report dated 15.07.2021. The cost of labour component was Rs.73,748/- and cost of material component was Rs.4,23,997/-. Appellants paid Rs.73,748/- (cost of labour component) to the respondent but did not pay the amount of Rs.4,23,997/-(cost of material component), which compelled the respondent to file the writ petition WP(C) No.2332/2022 for directing the appellants to ____________________________________________________________________ LPA No.84/2025 2 pay the amount of Rs.4,23,997/- to him. 2. Appellants filed response and objected to the claim of the respondent by submitting that the ratio of wage costs to material costs should not be less than the minimum norm of 60:40, as stipulated in the MGNREGA and reiterated in Annual Master Circular 2021-22. The Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, while releasing the funds for meeting the expenditure for implementing the MGNREGA Scheme, has consistently maintained that expenditure of material component including the wages of skilled and semi-skilled labour should not exceed 40% at District level. For the Financial Year 2016-17, Jammu Division has incurred total expenditure of Rs.49,853.94/- lacs out of which Rs.21,524.67/- lacs were incurred on wages, which is 43.17% of the total expenditure and Rs.24969.40/- lacs were incurred on material component, which is 50.08% of the total expenditure. Similarly, for the Financial Year 2017-18, Jammu Division has incurred total expenditure of Rs.67,511.36/- lacs, out of which Rs.32498.74/- were incurred on wages, which is 48.14% of total expenditure and Rs.31,301.45/- lacs on material component which is 46.36% of the total expenditure. As Jammu Division has already spent more than 40% on material component for both financial years, the additional liabilities would come under the violation of 60:40 ratio, therefore the claim of the respondent is not maintainable. 3. The learned writ court vide order dated 04.11.2024 has disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellants to pay the amount of ____________________________________________________________________ LPA No.84/2025 3 Rs.4,23,997/- to the respondent along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of petition till actual realization of the amount. 4. Appellants have impugned the judgement dated 04.11.2024 on similar grounds, as were raised before the learned writ court. Appellants have not denied the receipt of part payment of Rs.73,748/- by the respondent, but appellants are objecting to the claim of the respondent only on the ground that the Jammu Division has exceeded the limit provided under the MGNREGA Scheme. The respondent has executed the work and the guidelines, if any, were required to be followed by the appellants. The respondent cannot be punished if the appellants or their officials have violated the guidelines of MGNREGA Scheme, particularly when the appellants in pars-3 of their response before the learned writ court have admitted the execution of work by the respondent. 5. After examining the judgement passed by the learned writ court, we do not find any reason to disagree with the findings returned by learned writ court that if the officers of the appellants have not adhered to the conditions under MGNREGA Scheme, the appellants can proceed against the erring officers but in no case can withhold the payment due to the respondent. 6. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE SRINAGAR 13.05.2025 Ishaq