Public Service Guarantee Act (PSGA) is one more glaring example of Government’s failure to translate words into action. Sometimes we feel that the Government of the State is just kidding with the people or taking them for a ride because it demonstrates utter lack of interest in carrying a piece of legislation to its logical conclusion. Any Act is passed by the legislature after duly debating its necessity, its pros and cons and its implication part. The natural corollary of passing an Act is that the concerned agency or agencies have to implement it in letter and in spirit. Failure to implement it means the bill is practically defeated on the ground though in the Assembly it stands passed. In short there is a world of difference between passing an Act and implementing the Act. It is in the second part that we usually fail to deliver the goods.
Five years down the line the Public Service Guarantee Act (PSGA) was enacted by the legislature with fanfare. Soon after that the Government of the time, gave it tremendous media hype and the then ministers made people believe that with the passing of the Act entire administration had become fully answerable to the society and that henceforth the administration was accountable at every step for enforcing good governance and eradicating the evils that bedevil the entire spectrum of civil administration. However, the reality on the ground was far different from what was publicized. The essential and almost non-controversial aspect of the Act was that the Government is duty bound to provide service to the public within a time limit failing which action under law could be taken against the delinquent authority. However, the spirit of the Act was never implemented during past five years of its existence. Two reasons are advanced. One is the shortage of funds and the other is the shortage of manpower including technical manpower. Whenever our representative contact the concerned authorities their excuse is focused on these two reasons.
When both of these reasons are analyzed, we come to the conclusion that there is some confusion and inconsistency in the entire process of enacting legislature to this effect and that no single person or agency can be held responsible for the shortcoming. The usual practice is that whenever an Act is passed, its financial aspect is also taken into consideration and then the Finance Department is supposed to include the item of expenditure on account of implementation of the Act. Evidently, this process has been conducted. How then is the phenomenon of lack of funds to be interpreted and rationalized? How can an Act be effectively implemented without the financial adjunct? It is rather impossible. Secondly, the shortage of manpower is a serious issue. There is much weight in the argument of the revenue officers including the Deputy Commissioners and higher ups in the hierarchy that despite induction of many centrally sponsored schemes, the limited manpower at the office of the District Commissioner or the Tehsildar and other revenue/judicial officers are called upon to ensure implementation of those schemes also in respective offices. This puts heavy burden on the existing staff, the number of which has not been increased of late. Functionaries in revenue offices are overworked, and unable to cope with the quantum of work they are required to dispose off. The Government has not increased the existing manpower numerically and that has created the problem according to sources. The General Administrative Department, which is the nodal agency for carrying forward the project, has conceded that there is shortage of manpower at district and tehsil levels and that hampers timely delivery.
If the Act is to be made productive, the way of doing that is to implement it and then watch what are the lacunae with which the Act is beset and how can these be overcome. Just passing on orders to subordinate categories to implement such and such part of a project “subject to availability of funds” is a curious way of allowing the project remains in a state of limbo. The authority that passes an order like that is expected to know the financial status of the department and react accordingly. We also regret the lack of awareness among the people of the rights that the Act provides. For example, it says that the people have a right to filing appeals before First and Second Appellate Authorities after being denied services within the specified period. If the people are not aware of this right, it is because awareness is not brought to them. They could demand redress of grievance in the light of the clauses of the Act.
Another grave shortcoming in the implementation of the Act is the failure of the General Administrative Department to conduct periodic review of implementation of the Act so as to find out the lacunae. The CM has expressed her anguish for not making the best use of the Act and would want the administration to effectively implement the PSGA in the State. It should not remain an ornamental piece only while people continue to suffer for want of quick and equitable justice.
Follow our WhatsApp channel