Madras High Court: No Right to Permanent Job Under MGNREGA, Urges Rethinking Scheme's Role

The Madras High Court has ruled that long-term employment under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) does not confer a right to permanent government jobs. The court dismissed a woman's plea for regularisation as a scavenger at a veterinary hospital, but urged policymakers to consider redeploying MGNREGA workers in agriculture to address labour shortages and boost rural productivity.

Justice B Pugalendhi, in his June 22 order, noted that public welfare programmes must evolve with changing economic conditions and technological advancements. He observed that when MGNREGA was conceived, most public works required substantial manual labour, such as desilting ponds and digging channels. Today, many of these tasks can be performed more efficiently with modern machinery.

“The purpose of such an arrangement need not be to confer any right to permanent employment. The distinction between engagement under a welfare scheme and appointment to public services would continue to remain,” the court said. However, it suggested that labour under MGNREGA could be channelled towards activities directly contributing to agricultural production and rural economic growth.

The court highlighted a growing problem: farmers across the state frequently complain of acute labour shortages for agricultural operations. If MGNREGA workers can be used to meet manpower needs in rural government institutions, a similar framework could be devised for the agricultural sector. This could involve sharing the wage burden between the government and farmers, ensuring employment for workers, addressing labour shortages, and reducing the burden on the public exchequer.

The order also raised questions about whether MGNREGA workers should continue to be deployed for tasks that can now be done by machines, or whether they should be redirected to sectors with genuine demand for human effort. The court acknowledged that the practical modalities, eligibility conditions, safeguards against misuse, extent of mechanisation, and monitoring mechanisms are matters for policymakers and experts.

“The circumstances brought to the notice of this Court suggest that the issue may deserve a fresh examination,” Justice Pugalendhi added, stressing that welfare programmes must adapt to ground realities.