AG detects lapses in implementation of NREGA in UP

Allahabad: In findings that may further strain Congress-BSP relationship in Uttar Pradesh, the Comptroller and Auditor
General of India has detected serious lapses and irregularities in the implementation of the NREGA scheme in the state.

In its report for the year ended March 31, 2008, the CAG has expressed serious concern over deficiencies like "non-
provision of the envisaged job guarantee to rural poor, fake payment of wages and delay in payment of wages to labourers".

The much-touted National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) came into being in 2006.

The CAG report has pointed out instances of "delay ranging from six to 11 months in annual plans" which have resulted in
non-timely provision and in some cases even non-provision of employment to households.

Besides, implementation of the programme was adversely affected on account of non-appointment of Dedicated Programme
Officers at block level and non-deployment of "Rozgar Sevaks" in Gram Panchayats.

The CAG has also noted with concern that "wages of Rs 1.21 crore were paid to labourers with delay ranging from one to
nine months as against the maximum permissible period of 15 days".

The report has also pointed out an instance of "fraudulent payment" to the tune of Rs 47,000 in Sitapur district where the
money was paid to labourers who "did not exist in the Gram Panchayat concerned".

Besides, fraudulent payment to the tune of Rs 1.07 lakh for a total of 1585 mandays was made in various other districts on
account of labourers with same name and job card appearing twice or even thrice in the muster rolls of "same or different
works which were executed during the same period", the report said.

The CAG also has pointed out the instance of Rs 32,000 being paid without taking
signature/thumb impression on token of receipt of payments to "51 labourers (347) mandays" in a Gram Panchayat of
Fatehpur district.

Yet another deficiency detected by the CAG is "short payment of wages", wherein payment for 7,911 mandays was made at
the rate of Rs 58 instead of the approved rate of Rs 80-100.

The report has also pointed out poor maintenance of records due to which "it was not possible to verify the issue of job cards
within prescribed time limit, the number of households demanded/provided employment and the entitlement of individual
households to unemployment allowance".

Besides, "inadequate compliance of the scheme’s inbuilt transparency safeguards such as social audit, non-formation of
vigilance and monitoring committees, inadequate inspections of work by district and block level officers and non-
appointment of District Quality Monitors adversely affected effectiveness of the scheme" the report noted

Sunday will mark the fifth anniversary of the landmark National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (later
rechristened the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, or MGNREGA). At a time when
the country is debating the contours of similar landmark legislation for food security (the National Food
Security Act), it is time to evaluate the working of MGNREGA, initially implemented in 200 of the country’s
poorest districts and expanded to all rural areas by 2008.
Going by the statistics available with the ministry of rural development, MGNREGA is the largest programme
for providing employment in rural areas. Official statistics say that with 2.83 billion person days generated,
52.5 million households benefited from it in 2009-10, out of the 113.2 million households that had been
issued job cards. Scheduled caste/scheduled tribe (SC/ST) households accounted for 51.2% of total person
days, and women for 49%. These are impressive statistics by any standard. Nonetheless, these need to be
verified against independent evidence.

Though numerous field and micro-studies are available, very few large-scale surveys existed on the
functioning of MGNREGA until the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) decided to include it as part
of its official employment-unemployment surveys. NSSO has now introduced a separate activity code (42)
for all those working as wage labourers under MGNREGA. The 64th round of the survey (2007-08), the
latest available, is large enough to provide a reliable estimate of MGNREGA work at both the national and
state levels, and is fully comparable with the quinquennial round of 2004-05—the year immediately
preceding the implementation of MGNREGA.

First, the broad results: According to NSSO, total employment generated by public jobs programmes in
2007-08 was 1.02 billion person days, 71% of the official estimate of 1.44 billion person days. At an average
wage rate of Rs78.91 per day, this implies that the total wage bill was Rs8,040 crore, 74% of the official
estimate of Rs10,738 crore. These definitely show an improvement over the usual claim that only 15% of
government money reaches the people. But even a 25% leakage in MGNREGA wage payment is cause for
concern.

How does this compare with pre-MGNREGA days? Public jobs programmes in 2004-05 generated 240 million
person days of employment. In comparison, employment generated increased by 4.2 times in 2007-08.
However, the increase varies across states and districts. Compared with phase I districts (the poorest 200),
employment increased by more than 5.4 times in the 130 phase II districts, and by just 1.9 times in phase
III ones. Considering that the districts in phase I and II were among the poorest, this also suggests that the
largest expansion in employment generation happened in the poorest areas. Since these districts are also
the ones where the programme was initially implemented, this may also represent strengthening of the
delivery system over time.

However, there is considerable performance variation across gender and states. NSSO shows only 38%
female employment compared with the official claim of 43%. The 200 poorest districts showed a marginal
improvement in female employment, from 28% in 2004-05 to 36% in 2007-08. It actually declined in phase
III districts. NSSO’s estimate of SC/ST employment, however, was similar to official statistics.

In terms of state-wise distribution, four states accounted for 71% of total employment generated— Andhra
Pradesh (28%), Madhya Pradesh (19.7%), Rajasthan (13.5%) and Chhattisgarh (9.5%). Andhra Pradesh
itself showed a massive increase in employment from less than 10 million person days in 2004-05 to more
than 270 million person days in 2007-08. The increase in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh was also
impressive. On the other hand, Rajasthan, at 1.31 times, showed little improvement. Compared with these
four, the poor states of Bihar, West Bengal, Assam, Jharkhand, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh together accounted
for only 18% of the total employment generated.

These outcomes have had positive externalities on other areas. Not only have casual wages increased by
4.5% per year in real terms, MGNREGA has also led to a narrower gender gap in casual wages. As reported
by NSSO, there is a negligible gender gap in public employment; but even in casual employment in other
works, male wages were only 50% higher in 2007-08 compared with 58% in 2004-05.

It is obvious that in a short span of five years, MGNREGA has performed much better than what sceptics
expected—in terms of the level of leakages, as well as inclusion for disadvantaged groups such as women
and SC/ST households and poor districts. While these highlight the huge potential that the programme has,
they also underscore its dependence on institutional structures and innovations in programme delivery, as in
Andhra Pradesh. The huge gap across states in implementation is partly a result of governance. But it is also
a reflection of political will.
Most sceptics agree that inflation and drought in recent years did not lead to massive protests partly
because the rural population was insulated by MGNREGA’s safety net. Such claims need to be verified. But
the last general election is evidence that the scheme has paid rich political dividends.

Himanshu is an assistant professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University and a visiting fellow at Centre de
Sciences Humaines, New Delhi.

Home > Liberation > Year_2008 > February > CAG Report on NREGS

CAMPAIGN

CAG AUDIT INTERIM REPORT:

NREGA Being Mocked in Spirit?
The NREGA 2005 is the one piece of legislation on which the UPA's claim of 'human face'
governance rests. February 2, 2008, will mark two years since the implementation of the NREGS
in 200 districts. Since then, an additional 130 districts were notified in May 2007; and Rahul
Gandhi's 'coronation' as Congress General Secretary was marked by his announcement of
NREGS' extension to the entire country.
Right from the start, the CPI(ML) and AIALA have closely monitored the implementation of the
NREGS. Time and again, AIALA has confronted Central and State governments with its
grassroots experiences, revealing the wholesale violations, irregularities and corruption in its
implementation in state after state. Every step of the way, the rural poor had to wage fierce
battles against the denial of job cards, of work, of minimum wages, of women's rights, in blatant
defiance of the already circumscribed rights 'guaranteed' by the Act.
The CAG's interim Draft Performance Audit report of the first year of NREGS' implementation
has recently been circulated to various state governments; while this has not yet been made
public, its contents have come to be known through the media. The Audit's findings vindicate the
AIALA's own experience to a very large extent, is testimony to the sheer lack of political will of
the state governments of every hue towards the question of employment, wages and rights of the
rural poor. Now, the UPA Government is playing down the implications of the CAG report, by
claiming that the NREGS is "already a big success, and will be a huge success", and passing the
buck for implementation to the States rather than the Centre. Meanwhile sections of the
corporate media and have taken the CAG findings as an opportunity to trash the very concept of
employment guarantee for the rural poor.
The CAG Report is a voice from the horse's own mouth, from the establishment itself, that even
the most well-intentioned observer cannot but deny the rampant corruption, the irregularities, the
widespread subversion of the Act; exceptions exist, no doubt, but the credit for the exceptions
invariably goes to militant mass struggles of the rural poor. For the most part, the NREGS has
remained an illusory showpiece for the UPA regime and the ruling classes; whatever
implementation of the Act has taken place has been wrested from reluctant and apathetic
governments. 
AIALA's experience is that the CAG findings cannot be dismissed as mere teething troubles of
the first year; the irregularities, violations, and major leakages have continued in the second year.
The reluctance of governments to sincerely implement the Act reflects the fear of mobilization
and organization of the rural proletariat and poor, and bodes ill for the extension of the coverage
of the Act to the entire country.      
Liberation summarizes some of the main findings of the CAG report below.
The scope of audit was restricted to the initial 200 districts identified for implementation of
NREGA, and the period of audit coverage was from February 2006 to March 2007. Records
relating to 68 districts, 128 blocks within the selected districts, and 513 Gram Panchayats (GPs)
in the selected blocks were selected for detailed examination.
The total financial assistance provided by the GoI to all the State Governments up to 31 March
2007 was Rs. 12073.56 crore. Of this, the State Governments could utilize Rs. 8823.36 crore
(73.08 per cent).
Delay and Violations in Preparatory Steps: The State Government of Karnataka had delayed the
issuing of notification of the REGS by 14 months. The State Governments of 14 States did not
formulate rules pertinent to the implementation of the Scheme, in consonance with the Act; 15
states did not prescribe the time frame for each level i.e. GP, Block and District levels for
proposing, scrutinising and approving REGS works; 8 states did not designate any officer as
State Rural Employment Guarantee Commissioner; 4 States had not constituted State
Employment Guarantee Councils (SEGCs).
Even in the case of states which had constituted SEGCs, common observations were that many
had not prepared the list of preferred works to be implemented under the Scheme; had not
prepared Annual Reports for submission to the State Legislature; were constituted without non-
official members; neither reviewed the monitoring and redressal mechanism of NREGA nor
monitored the implementation of NREGA; or fixed no periodicity of meeting or conducted no
district wise studies.
NREGS Starved of Administrative and Technical Support: The State Governments of 19 States
did not appoint a full-time dedicated Programme Officer in 89 blocks; existing Block
Development Offices (BDOs) were appointed as Programme Officers and given the additional
charge of the Scheme. Similar was the failure to appoint Administrative Assistants, Technical
Assistants, dedicated Gram Rozgar Sevaks; the failure to constitute any panel of Accredited
Engineers for the purpose of assisting with the estimation and measurement of work; failure to
set up a Technical Resource Support Group at State/ District level.
The CAG Audit observes that such a failure "Considering the fact the average block in the 200
districts in NREGA Phase-I has 20 GPs and 56 villages, non-appointment of a full-time
dedicated Programme Officers (PO), who is pivotal to the successful implementation of
NREGA, and giving the additional charge of PO to BDOs, who were responsible for other
developmental schemes at the Block level, strikes at the root of effective implementation of
NREGA…. The absence of Gram Rozgar Sewaks severely affected the maintenance of basic
records at the GP level, without which it would be impossible to verify employment demand and
allocation for each household. Also, the potential REGS beneficiaries do not have any one at the
GP level to contact about their demand for employment."
Violation of Democracy and Transparency in Planning: Under NREGA, the GPs are directed to
convene yearly, well-publicised meetings of the Gram Sabha with maximum participation to
estimate the demand for labour, and to propose the number and priority of works to be taken up
in the next financial year.
The Audit found that a documented annual plan was not prepared by 168 GPs in 14 States; Gram
Sabha meetings were not widely publicized before hand in 283 GPs in 21 states; works were not
identified by the Gram Sabhas in 91 GPs in 12 states; District Plans in 8 Districts in 7 States did
not comprise a block-wise shelf of projects; District Plans in 46 Districts in 22 States did not
indicate the timeframe for each project.
In Orissa and Jammu & Kashmir, participation in the GS meetings was poor – 2.3 per cent in 14
GPs in Orissa, and 1-2 per cent in 10 GPs in Jammu & Kashmir; in Rajasthan, Annual Plans
were not linked with DPPs, and approval of Gram Sabhas was not taken/on record for the works
executed; in Maharashtra, no estimate was made of the demand for labour; in Jharkhand, in
Hazaribagh district, the Annual Plan was not prepared GP-wise and it did not specify the works
to be taken up, the mandays to be generated, prioritization of works etc; in Ranchi district, the
Annual Plan provided for only 2209 works, whereas 5918 works were taken up; in Bihar, 242
works in block Mohanpur during 2006-07 valued at Rs 8.72 crore were executed without
inclusion in the AP. Annual plans prepared for NREGS in all test checked GPs were heavily
loaded towards construction of brick soling roads, resulting in high material-labour ratio.
The Audit considers the impact of the above: "In the absence of documented Annual Plans, there
would be no shelf of projects for timely approval, thus adversely affecting the ability to meet
demand for employment. Lack of participation, or inadequate participation by Gram Sabhas, and
Gram Panchayats in the planning process would vitiate the process of people’s participation,
transparency and accountability, and also adversely affect the creation of productive assets
benefiting the local community. In the absence of specification of physical assets and enduring
outcomes in the District Annual Plans, no meaningful comparison of actual achievements vis-à-
vis plans is possible."
Failure to Ensure Registration and Issue of Job Cards: 
The introductory Gram Sabha meeting at the time of commencement of the Act was not
convened in 119 GPs in 12 States; door-to-door survey to identify persons willing to register was
not conducted in 290 GPs in 19 States; job cards were not issued to all registered households in
74 GPs in 11 States; job cards were not issued within 15 days of application for registration in
162 GPs in 15 States; photographs were not attached to job cards in 220 GPs in 13 States.  
In Orissa, 670 households of 16 GPs of Narla Block of Kalahandi District were not registered,
despite submitting applications, on the grounds that their names did not feature in the 2002 BPL
survey list. One village (Kajumaska) of Santapur with a population of 90 (SC-11; ST-79) was not
covered for registration of households.
Other instances from various states abound.
The Audit concludes, "The non-conduct of an introductory Gram Sabha as well as a door-to-door
survey adversely affects the number of rural household registrations, and consequently demand
for employment; if BPL surveys are reliable, then the number of registered householders should
at least equal the number of BPL households, and a substantial shortfall would indicate poor
publicity and slackness in implementation of NREGA…The absence of photographs weakens
controls on allocation of employment and payment of wages to intended beneficiaries."
Norms for Works Violated: The audit notes that low wage areas were not identified in 53
Districts in 22 States; unique identity numbers were not allotted to works in 297 GPs in 21
States; in 15 Districts in 6 States, the wages-material ratio of 60:40 was not maintained; 35 test-
checked blocks in 10 States did not maintain a wage-material ratio of 60:40; administrative
approval and technical sanction of works was not obtained in advance in 96 GPs in 12 States;
worksite facilities were not provided in 202 GPs in 15 States.  
Some of the State-specific instances mentioned in the Audit regarding works: In Bihar,    37
works costing Rs. 2.02 crore were abandoned in Supaul after expenditure of Rs. 27.79 lakh, as
they exceeded the stipulated material-labour ratio, resulting in unfruitful expenditure. …Works
of Rs 1.49 crore under scheme were assigned (June 2006) to two NGOs, who had not executed
the SGRY works amounting to Rs 46.22 lakh earlier allotted to them. The DDC, Darbhanga
transferred Rs 2.69 crore to special division, Darbhanga during 2006-07 for construction of 34
protection walls of raised platforms constructed under Sam Vikas Yojana. Works valued Rs 1.76
lakh was shown as completed in Bahadurpur block before issue of work order. In Muzaffarpur
district, despite availability of funds of Rs 11.12 lakh, no work was undertaken for the period
2006-07 leaving the entire allotted funds unutilized.
In Haryana,    in Sirsa District, while the material consumed in the district from April 2006 to
February 2007 for pucca works was Rs. 3.87 crore, expenditure on purchase of stores in March
2007 alone was Rs. 3.61 crore. Also, the cash books of 3 blocks of the district for 2006-07 had
not been closed as of June 2007, as transactions relating to the purchase of the material had not
been completed. Clearly, the material was purchased merely to show utilization of funds, without
assessing the requirement on works. In Mohindergarh District, records showing segregation of
expenditure on material and wages were not maintained. An expenditure of Rs. 4.31 crore was
incurred on digging 257 ponds in Mohindergarh District, which is a drought prone area with
scanty rainfall and where the soil is sandy and has no retention power. Block and GP officials
admitted that the ponds dug under NREGS were without water. One pond had almost become a
swimming pool, as 80 per cent of expenditure was incurred on material and masonry works. Test
check in Mohindergarh revealed payment of Rs. 13.12 lakh to tractor/ camel cart owners for
carrying out earthwork, in violation of NREGA Guidelines.
In Jharkhand,           in the absence of AP in Palamu, the DC instructed BDOs to take up “work
of irrigation well” in villages without assessing the requirement. Consequently, 1112 wells were
taken up (December 2006) at a cost of Rs. 9.93 crore for completion by February/ March 2007,
which remained incomplete as of July 2007. In Gumla, schemes for construction of 159
irrigation wells, ponds and tree plantation were sanctioned by the DC without holding the
meeting of Gram Sabha for Rs 8.32 crore for completion by September 2006 to May 2007. None
of the above works were completed within May 2007. On the recommendation of six MLAs, 71
schemes for Rs 5.14 crore were taken up (between March 2006 and May 2007) for execution, but
these were neither in the Annual Plan nor approved by the Gram Sabhas. DC, Gumla sanctioned
(March 2007) 100 units of “Safed Musli” cultivation for commercial farming for Rs 1.24 crore at
Rs 1.24 lakh per unit, which had only 12 per cent (Rs 15.30 lakh) labour component. In West
Singhbhum, of 4,326 works executed (2006-07) for Rs 52.13 crore, 2,373 were PCC Roads
where labour component was as low as 19 to 24 per cent as against the norm of 60 per cent.
In Madhya Pradesh, tractor and rollers were engaged on MRs for transportation of material and
compaction of road and tank works; CEO, ZP Sidhi incurred Rs. 20.80 lakh on spraying of
hormones for jatropha plantation on contract basis through M/s Sai Biotech company, Rewa.
In Orissa,      in Bhawanipatna block of Kalahandi District, 149 works were executed at a cost of
Rs 7.55 crore between February 2006 and March 2007 through contractors in the guise of
Village Labour Leaders (VLLs) (up to November 2006) and in the name of departmental
execution through the Junior Engineers (from December 2006).
In Tripura,    Rs.9 lakh was transferred (November 2006) to the account of Divisional Forest
Officer, Manu for construction of 72 IAY type houses, in violation of NREGA guidelines. Rs.
52.44 lakh was incurred on construction of a Motorstand where the ratio of the wage cost to
material cost was 30:70.  Similarly, in 62 projects under 2 Panchayat Samitis, Rs. 106.91 lakh
was incurred where ratio of wage – material cost ranged from 9:91 to 31:69.
In Uttarakhand,        works of Jal Nikaas Naali, in one GP, amounting to Rs. 15220 was not
commenced, but the expenditure was reported in the MPR.
In West Bengal,        an expenditure of Rs.38.49 lakh was incurred in 20 works for execution of
non-existent quantities of work, which was detected during joint physical verification.
Non-Payment of Minimum Wages, Delayed Payments:
The audit noted the widespread violations of the stipulated norms of employment, measurement
of work, wage payment etc…, and observes that "non-payment of minimum wages, and delayed
payment of wages is illegal, and also defeats NREGA’s objective of providing livelihood
security. In the absence of a detailed listing of tasks in different geo-morphological conditions,
conduct of work, time and motion studies for fixing of productivity norms, and preparation of
separate DSRs, the principle that seven hours of normal work should earn no less than the
minimum wage is defeated. This is especially important as any willing adult member can seek
employment under NREGA, while construction works undertaken in other departmental works
would place a premium on healthy and able bodied individuals."
Employment Generation Far Short of 100 Day Promise:
The Audit conducted a review of the employment provided (as per the Monthly Progress Reports
(MPRs) of March 2007) in 465 GPs in 111 blocks in 26 States, which revealed that the average
employment provided to each registered household was 18 days, and only 3.2 per cent of the
registered households received 100 days or more of employment.
The average mandays of employment generated in test-checked GPs, state-wise, was as low as 2
(West Bengal), 5 (Tripura), 7 (Jharkhand), 8 (Kerala), 13 (Assam), 15 (TN), 20 (Orissa).
In many states, the actual demand for employment could not be verified as no applications were
received and records were not maintained. Non-payment of compensation in case of delayed
wage payment was rampant.
In the case of Jharkhand, the audit noted "in 10 districts, 6.10 lakh applicants were reported to
have been provided employment against 0.70 lakh households, while in three districts, 0.10 lakh
applicants against 0.90 lakh households were reported to have been provided employment. These
figures are clearly unreliable."
In Manipur, "No written applications for work were on record. Work was provided on verbal
consent of workers."
In Orissa, in 48 test checked GPs, against 31,027 BPL households, 37, 630 households were
registered, and only 13,778 households were provided employment during 2006-07. Even where
100 days of employment were shown to have been provided, the audit noted that it "was also not
free from doubt, as physical verification of job cards of 13 out of 14 test checked households
revealed only 10 to 96 days of employment, as against 100 days or more shown in the online job
cards."
In Rajasthan, the audit notes, "10.94 lakh households (73 per cent of registered households)
demanded employment, and 100 days of employment was provided to only 2.39 lakh
households. Thus, the claim of the State Government of generation of 999 lakh mandays at an
average of 91 days per household demanding employment appears unrealistic."
Regarding West Bengal, the audit notes, "Employment provided under N.F.F.W.P. was not
recorded in the employment register and relevant job cards, but mandays generated under
N.F.F.W.P. were shown in the Progress Report as an output of N.R.E.G.S."
Improper Maintenance of Muster Rolls:
The audit documents the widespread irregularities, forgeries and the like in maintenance of MRs,
stating, "MRs form the single most important document under NREGA. Improper maintenance
of MRs makes identification of genuine beneficiaries difficult, especially in the absence of bank/
postal payments."
Non-availability of Records:
The audit concludes that "in the absence of maintenance of critical registers, especially at the GP
level, it is impossible to authentically verify how many households demanded employment; how
many households were provided employment, and for how many days; how many households
got 100 days of employment; what was the break-up of SC, ST and women beneficiaries, and
how much employment did they demand and receive; what was the entitlement of individual
households to unemployment allowance" and "thus, the compliance with the legal guarantee of
100 days of employment on demand is not verifiable, based on available documents. In addition,
transparency and accountability is adversely affected. Also, in the absence of these documents,
the relevance of social audit is undermined."
Inflated/ incorrect reporting of physical and financial achievements is another of the observations
of the audit, and also "status of monitoring, evaluation and social audit was also not up to the
mark."

The COG Audit also includes a range of recommendations, many of which are thoughtful and
useful. However, it remains that even the best of suggestions and methods can be of use only if
Governments in question wish to correct the irregularities, curb the vested interests and make
NREGS something more than a mere showpiece of the ruling elite.

 
 
Home > Liberation > Year_2008 > February > CAG Report on NREGS
Employment guarantee scheme wage hiked
Friday - Jan 07, 2011, 12:14pm (GMT+5.5)

[+] Text [-]

New Delhi - Wages under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) have been linked to the Consumer Price
Index for Agricultural Labourers (CPI-AL) which will lead to enhancement of wages of beneficiaries by between 17 to 30 percent, Rural
Development Minister C.P. Joshi announced Thursday.

The indexing to CPI-AL will be applicable from Jan 1 and over 50 million people will be benefitted, he said, adding that the linkage to CPI-AL
has been done with the wage of Rs.100 on April 1, 2009 as the base.

He said the linkage will result in annual enhancement in wages of MGNREGA beneficiaries and the base wage will also be revised after five
years.

The government was prepared to look into any suggestions made by a study group concerning linkage of MGNREGA wage, the minister
added.

Joshi rejected suggestions that there were differences between the government and Sonia Gandhi-headed National Advisory Council (NAC) on
the method of hiking wages of  MGNREGA beneficiaries.

"The decision has been arrived at on the basis of recommendations of NAC... We have taken care of NAC recommendations and desire of our
honourable leader.  The decision has been taken within the purview of rules relating to MGNREGA," he said.

Ministry sources said some NAC members had favoured paying MNREGA workers the minimum wages statutorily notified by different states.

However, they said that MGNREGA rules do not permit such a linkage and indexing to CPI-AL will prove more beneficial.

With the government decision, the revised rate of wage to MGNREGA beneficiary in Assam will be Rs.130 instead of the present wage rate of
Rs.100 per day. Similarly it will go up by Rs.27 in Maharashtra, Rs.44.60 in Manipur, Rs.25 in Karnataka and Rs.34 in Chandigarh.

Ministry officials said beneficiaries in some states will continue to get more than revised per day wage rate and the additional burden will be
borne by the governments concerned.
 MGNREGA aims at enhancing the livelihood security of people in rural areas by guaranteeing hundred days of wage-employment in a financial
year to a rural household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work.

Read more: http://www.indiavision.com/news/article/national/142878/#ixzz1AzyV6ebB