Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Program, MGNREGA was earlier known as National Rural Employment Scheme, NREGA. It is an Indian Social Welfare Program that aimed at fulfilling the ‘Right to Work’ provisions made in the Constitution. MGNREGA was launched in 2006 under Rural Employment Sector by the Ministry of Rural Development.
Main objective of the program is to give legal guarantee of wage employment to the adult members of rural households who are willing to do unskilled manual labour work subject to a maximum of 100 days per year for every household. Every rural household has the right to register under the scheme, job card is issued to the registered, Job Card holder can seek employment; State Government shall pay 25% of minimum wage for the first 30 days as compensatory daily unemployment allowance to the families and of wage for remaining period of the year. MGNREGA work was undertaken by various Gram Panchayats.
You have been appointed as an Administrator Incharge of the District. You have been given the responsibility of monitoring MGNREGA work undertaken by various Gram Panchayats. You are also given the authority to give technical sanctions to all MGNREGA works.
In one of the Panchayats in your jurisdiction, you notice that your predecessor has mismanaged the Program in terms of:
(i) Money not disbursed to actual job-seekers.
(ii) Muster Rolls of the Labourers not properly maintained.
(iii) Mismatch between the work done and payments made.
(iv) Payments made to fictitious persons.
(v) Job Cards were given without looking into the need of person.
(vi) Mismanagement of funds and to the extent of siphoning of funds.
(vii) Approved works that never existed.
(a) What is your reaction to the above situation and how do you restore the proper functioning of MGNREGA Program in this regard? (b) What actions would you initiate to solve the various issues listed above? (c) How would you deal with the above situation?
Approach · directive: “what / what actions / how”
What it asks · State your response on finding large-scale irregularities in the rural employment programme, and set out how to fix each problem, recover losses and restore workers’ trust.
It asks 3 things — answer each
- (a) Your reaction to the situation, and how you would restore the proper functioning of the programme
- (b) The actions you would initiate to solve each of the listed issues
- (c) How you would deal with the situation overall — approach and conduct
Open with · The crux, accountability to the rural poor versus loyalty to the service: shielding a predecessor would betray workers whose right to work (Article 41) the programme secures.
Cover
- Stakeholders, led by genuine job-seekers; dilemmas: loyalty to a colleague vs accountability, speed of relief vs due process, punishment vs restoring work.
- (a) Reaction: a breach of public trust; act on evidence, neither shielding the predecessor nor starting a witch-hunt.
- (a) Immediately: freeze suspicious payments, secure records, order a special audit of every work and job card, and reopen demand registration.
- (b) A table matching the seven irregularities to actions; NMMS attendance, geotagging and Aadhaar-based payment; FIRs, recovery and disciplinary action through due process.
- (c) Options: hush it up, punish only, or correct, recover and reform (chosen); firm but fair conduct; social audit and the MKSS jan sunwai model.
- Systemic measures: regular social audits, an ombudsperson, timely wages, training for panchayat staff, and transparency boards at worksites.
Close with · Transparency, technology and community oversight restoring a genuine safety net, workers' trust as the measure of success, and a since-then note on the VB-G RAM G Act, 2025.
Add value (verified)
- The ‘Right to Work’ in the case comes from Article 41, a Directive Principle.The Constitution of India (Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, as on 1 May 2024) — Article 41 ↗“The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance”
- The Economic Survey 2025-26 (Ch. 10) names the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G) Act, 2025 as aiming to strengthen the interventions — a development that answers written now should mention.Economic Survey 2025-26, Chapter 10 (Ministry of Finance) ↗“The Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G) Act, 2025, aims to strengthen the interventions.”
- Kautilya (Arthashastra) lists about forty ways of embezzlement, beginning with entering early receipts late and showing uncollected sums as collected.Kautilya's Arthashastra, tr. R. Shamasastry, Book II Ch. VIII — archive.org ↗“There are about forty ways of embezzlement: what is realised earlier is entered later on; what is realised later is entered earlier; what ought to be realised is not realised; what is hard to realise is shown as realised;”
- Economic Survey 2024-25: MGNREGS works are geotagged before, during and after execution; 99.98% of payments go through the National Electronic Fund Management System; Aadhaar-based payment has been enabled for 96.3% of total active workers.Economic Survey 2024-25, para 11.108 — indiabudget.gov.in ↗“geotagging before, during, and after the work is being done, 99.98 per cent payments are through National Electronic Fund Management System, wages are transferred under DBT, Aadhaar-based payment has been enabled for 96.3 per cent of total active workers,”
- The National Mobile Monitoring Software (NMMS) app, launched in May 2021, records real-time attendance at MGNREGA worksites with a geo-tagged photograph.Economic Survey 2022-23 — indiabudget.gov.in ↗“National Mobile Monitoring Software (NMMS) App was launched in May 2021 which permits taking real-time attendance of workers at MGNREGA worksites along with a geo-tagged photograph.”
- 2nd ARC (Ethics in Governance, para 5.4.1): social audit by beneficiary or civil-society groups helps prevent wrongdoing, including in the distribution of welfare payments.2nd Administrative Reforms Commission, 4th Report: Ethics in Governance (2007), para 5.4.1 — DARPG (archived) ↗“Social audit through client or beneficiary groups or civil society groups is yet another way of eliciting information on and prevention of wrong doing in procurement of products and services for government, in the distribution of welfare payments, in the checking of attendance of teachers and students in schools and hostels, staff in the hospitals”
- The 2nd ARC cites the Jan Sunwai (public hearings) of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, Rajasthan, as a civil-society model against corruption.2nd Administrative Reforms Commission, 4th Report: Ethics in Governance (2007), Ch. 5 — DARPG (archived) ↗“2) Report Card Survey of Public Affairs Centre, Bangalore; 3) Jan Sunwai by Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, Rajasthan and Parivartan, Delhi;”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2025, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 368words · Minimalist IAS
Accountability to the rural poor versus loyalty to the service: money meant for the poorest was stolen, and shielding a predecessor would betray workers whose right to work (Article 41) the programme secures.
Stakeholders and dilemmas
- Most affected: genuine job-seekers and their families; also panchayat functionaries, the predecessor, the State government and taxpayers.
- Dilemmas: loyalty to a colleague versus accountability; speed of relief versus due process; punishment versus restoring work.
(a) My reaction, and restoring the programme
- Reaction: a breach of public trust, not an inherited nuisance. I would act urgently and impartially, on evidence: no shield for the predecessor, no witch-hunt.
- Immediately: freeze suspicious payments; secure records; order a special audit verifying every work and job card; reopen demand registration so genuine workers get work now.
(b) Actions on the listed issues
| Issues | Action |
|---|---|
| (i), (iv) Wrong or fictitious payees | Pay verified accounts only; cancel ghosts; recover |
| (ii), (iii) Muster and payment mismatch | App-based attendance; verified measurement before payment |
| (v)–(vii) Cards, funds, fake works | Gram sabha re-verification; geotagging; forensic audit |
- Existing tools: the NMMS app (May 2021) records worksite attendance with a geo-tagged photograph; works are geotagged before, during and after execution; Aadhaar-based payment is enabled for 96.3% of active workers (Economic Survey 2024-25).
- Accountability: FIRs, recovery and disciplinary action against officials and contractors, through due process.
(c) How I would deal with the situation
- Options: hush it up (spares the service, betrays the poor); punish only (deters, but work stalls); correct, recover and reform (slower, but lasting). I choose the third.
- Firm but fair: protect whistle-blowers and honest staff; rely on independent inquiry; keep the State informed; no publicity stunts.
- Community oversight: the 2nd ARC sees social audit by beneficiaries as a check on wrongdoing in welfare payments, citing the jan sunwai (public hearings) of Rajasthan's Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan.
Systemic measures
- Prevent recurrence: regular social audits, a working ombudsperson, wages on time, training for panchayat staff, and transparency boards at worksites.
Transparency, technology and community oversight can restore a genuine safety net; workers' trust is the real measure of success. (Since then, Parliament has enacted the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025, to which the Economic Survey 2025-26 refers.)
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 1 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
