Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Appointment of Ombudsperson for Redressal of Grievances, Persons Selected, Approved, Orders Issued
The Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (CGS.1) Department issued G.O.(Ms). No.34, dated 21 March 2022, appointing 31 Ombudspersons to handle grievances under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. Appointments of six other provisionally selected persons were kept in abeyance pending enquiries or antecedent verification.
What the government order does
The Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (CGS.1) Department issued G.O.(Ms). No.34, dated 21 March 2022, approving the appointment of 31 persons as Ombudspersons for grievance redressal under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The appointments support the implementation of the employment guarantee scheme and do not concern land ownership, property registration, land classification or development rights.
Grievance redressal framework
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act requires the State Government to establish an Ombudsman system for time bound grievance redressal. The source states that Ombudspersons are to receive grievances, conduct enquiries and pass awards.
Earlier government instructions had prescribed the selection procedure, qualifications, tenure and territorial jurisdiction for Ombudspersons. States were required to appoint an Ombudsman for each district.
Selection and public comments
A Selection Committee chaired by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Planning, Development and Special Initiatives Department, met on 6 and 7 January 2022. It selected a panel of 37 persons for 37 districts.
The selection process included the following steps:
- The panel was published on the Tamil Nadu government website and the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department website.
- The public was given 30 days to submit comments.
- Five complaints were received by post by the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj.
- Three objections were not considered.
- Two objections concerning character antecedents were sent to the relevant District Collector for verification.
Appointments kept in abeyance
G.O.(Ms). No.34, dated 21 March 2022, kept six provisional selections in abeyance:
- K.P. Anandan and R.C. Joseph Sahayaraj, pending enquiry into objections concerning character antecedents.
- S. Murugesan, R. Jeyakumar, V. Periyasamy and C. Hariselvam, because antecedent verification had not been received.
The Government proceeded with the appointment of the remaining 31 selected persons. The order lists each appointed person by name and address.
Who may be affected
The appointments are relevant to workers, applicants and others seeking grievance redressal under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. District Collectors, District Rural Development Agencies and rural development officials are also involved in administering the Ombudsman system. Property buyers and landowners are not given any new property related duty or restriction by the document.
This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.
Common questions
Does G.O.(Ms). No.34 affect my land ownership or property purchase?
No property related change is stated. The government order appoints Ombudspersons for grievances under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme.
How many Ombudspersons were appointed?
The Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (CGS.1) Department appointed 31 persons.
What can an Ombudsperson do under the scheme?
The source states that Ombudspersons receive grievances, conduct enquiries and pass awards under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme.
Why were six selected candidates not appointed immediately?
Two appointments were kept in abeyance pending enquiries into objections concerning character antecedents. Four others were kept in abeyance because their antecedent verification reports had not been received.
