WP(C) 2748/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY These three cases pertain to the claim for remuneration made by the Cooks and He lpers engaged in the implementation of the National Programme of Mid Day Meal Sc heme in Schools (NP-MDMS) in the State of Assam. 2. Submissions have been made on behalf of the Association in WP(C) No. 274 8/2009 by Mr. BB Narzari, learned senior counsel and on behalf of the other Asso ciation in WP(C) No. 591/2010 by Mr. MU Mondol, learned counsel. The three indiv idual petitioners in WP(C) No. 805/2010 are represented by Ms. R.B. Bora, learne d counsel. 3. Arguments have been advanced on behalf of the Central Govt. by Mr. R. Sh arma, learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India. The State Authorities are repre sented by Mr. UK Goswami, learned standing counsel, Education Department. The Sa rba Siksha Abhijan Directorate is represented by Mr. G. Goswami. Mr. PK Roy Chou dhury, learned CGC appears for the respondent No.2 in WP(C) No. 805/2010. The di fferent Deputy Commissioners arrayed as respondents in these proceedings are rep resented by Mr. BC Saikia, learned Govt. Advocate. 4. The petitioners claim that they and their members were engaged as Cooks/ Helpers in different primary schools in the State for implementation of the Mid Day Meal Scheme and they are aggrieved by non-disbursal of their due remuneratio n by the State Authorities. Mr. BB Narzary, learned senior counsel contends that Mid Day Meal Scheme is being provided in all the primary schools in the country and in Assam, the Scheme has been implemented from the year 2004. The learned c ounsel points out that out of the per unit mid-day meal cost of Rs.2/- for each student per day, Rs.1.60 is meant for purchasing of ingredients and fuel and Rs. 0.40 is for labour and other charges. Accordingly the counsel submits that when the labour cost is provided for, the State cannot force the petitioners to give free labour for implementing a State scheme. Mr. Narzary further submits that al though the Scheme cannot be considered to be an employment generating venture, r easonable remuneration should be paid to those, who are assisting the State, in implementation of the Mid Day Meal Scheme. 5. The petitioners refer to the Notification dated 24th November, 2009 of t he Ministry of Human Resources Development to show that the cooking cost for the Mid Day Meal Scheme is to be shared between the Center and the North Eastern St ates on 90:10 basis and payment of honorarium to Cooks/Helpers under the Mid Day Meal Programme, is also envisaged in the Centre’s Notification of 24.11.09. 6. A reading of the Central Govt’s Notification shows that provisions for p ayment of honorarium to Cooks/Helpers @ Rs.1000/- p.m. has been made and schools having students strength upto 25 can engage a single Cook/Helper. Two such pers ons can be engaged for a school having 26 to 100 students and one additional Coo k/Helper is permitted to be engaged for every addition upto 100 students. The No tification provides for the implementation of these norms w.e.f. 1.12.09 and the expenditure towards honorarium of the Cooks/Helpers is required to be shared pr oportionately by the Centre and the North Eastern States, on 90:10 ratio. 7. The learned standing counsel, Education Department submits that the Mid Day Meal Scheme is being implemented in the primary schools in the State accordi ng to the guidelines framed by the Central Govt. and the Director of Elementary Education Officer, Assam (DEE) is the State’s Nodal Officer, for implementation of the Scheme. The Departmental counsel however, submits that the petitioner can not claim wages at par with other Govt. employees as they are engaged to impleme nt the Mid Day Meal Scheme in their local schools and it is a kind of service to the local community. 8. For implementation of inter alia, the Mid Day Meal Scheme, the Supreme Court in its order dated 28.11.2001 in the case of People’s Union for Civil Libe rties Vs. Union of India & Ors. [WP(C) No. 196/2001] had directed the State Gove rnments to provide every child in Govt. schools, with a prepared Mid Day Meal wi th the recommended nutritional value. In a later order dated 29.10.2002, the Cou rt made it clear that in case of persistent default in compliance of the order o n providing meal to the school children, the concerned Chief Secretary shall be held accountable. The Supreme Court passed another order on 20.4.04, whereby, i nter alia, direction was issued to the Chief Secretaries/Administrators of the S tates and Union Territories to file compliance report before the Apex Court and the Central Govt. was entrusted with the responsibility of monitoring, the imple mentation of the Scheme. 9. Considering the purport of the Central Government’s Notification of 24.1 1.09 and the orders of the Apex Court, there can be no manner of doubt that the Mid Day Meal Scheme has to be implemented in all earnest in every Govt. and Gov t. Aided schools in the State. Consequently, the honorarium at the prescribed ra te for the Cooks and Helpers engaged for implementation of the Mid Day Meal Sche me is also required to be paid on a regular basis. But unfortunately the meager honorarium @ Rs.1000/- p.m., which was required to be paid w.e.f. 1.12.09, is y et to be paid to the Cooks/Helpers, forcing the petitioners to knock on the door s of the Court, for getting their just remuneration. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by the Nodal Officer I.e. the DEE, in WP( C) No. 591/2010, it is averred that the cooking cost including labour charge has already been released to the District Nodal Officers (Deputy Commissioners) for implementation of Mid Day Meal Scheme. But conspicuously the State Nodal Office r does not assert that remuneration to the Cooks/Helpers is actually paid. 11. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels and the m aterials in the case record, it has to be declared that the State and the Union Govt. are obliged to implement the Mid Day Meal Scheme with all its vigour for t he stake holders in the State. The DEE being the State’s Nodal Officer has the p rimary responsibility in implementation of the Scheme. Under the Notification da ted 24.11.09 issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department o f School Education and Literacy the Union and the State Govt. are to provide fun ds in the ratio 90:10 and they cannot shy away from paying the due remuneration to the Cooks/helpers. 12. The departmental counsel points out that information is not available as to the strength of students in the individual schools, where the petitioners ar e engaged as Cooks/Helpers and respondents should be permitted to make the neces sary verification in the individual schools, to ensure proper disbursal of the h onorarium to the Cooks/Helpers, in accordance with the norms specified in the Ce ntral Govt’s Notification dated 24.11.09. 13. All the parties appearing in the case are in agreement that the Mid Day Meal Scheme is to be implemented with effect from 1.12.09 in accordance with the norms specified in the Notification dated 24.11.09. The honorarium to Cooks/Hel pers @ Rs.1000/- p.m. is also required to be paid, as is provided by the Govt. N otification. Therefore, necessary direction in my view should be given to the re spondents to ensure release of the due honorarium to the Cooks/Helpers with effe ct from 1.12.09 @ 1000/- p.m. It is ordered accordingly. 14. However, the respondents may verify the students strength in each school as the numbers of Cooks/Helpers to be engaged depends on the number of students . But payment of honorarium should not be delayed by prolonging the verificatio n exercise. Accordingly wherever necessary, the respondents may carry out verifi cation exercise but the same be positively completed within 3 months from today i.e. on or before 1.7.2011, to ensure payment within 15 days, after completion o f the exercise. Where verification is unnecessary, steps may be taken for quick disbursal of honorarium to the Cooks/Helpers. 15. The cases stand allowed with the above direction.