Sandeep Khanna v. State of Punjab

Quick Reply: §33 MGNREGA delay compensation is automatic; no demand needed. Sandeep Khanna v. State of Punjab (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2021-11-04) CWP No. </WRAP> Sandeep Khanna v. State of Punjab (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2021-11-04) CWP No. 9876/2021 is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section §3(3)-MGNREGA. §3(3) MGNREGA delay compensation is automatic; no demand needed. Wage delay beyond 15 days from muster-roll closure under §3(3) of the MGNREGA Act 2005 attracts automatic delay compensation at 0.05% per day on the unpaid amount. ===== Holding ===== §3(3) MGNREGA delay compensation is automatic; no demand needed. ===== Ratio ===== Wage delay beyond 15 days from muster-roll closure under §3(3) of the MGNREGA Act 2005 attracts automatic delay compensation at 0.05% per day on the unpaid amount. The compensation is computed by NREGAsoft and runs without the worker having to make a separate claim. ===== Section(s) applied ===== * Section §3(3)-MGNREGA ===== Practitioner takeaway ===== 0.05% per day delay compensation runs without separate claim. ===== Citation ===== * Citation: CWP No. 9876/2021 * Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court * Date: 2021-11-04 * Outcome: allowed * Reporter / Cause-list: CWP No. 9876/2021 ===== Why this case matters for citizens ===== This ruling is part of the 300+ case-law corpus at RTI Wiki Case-law Database. Every named case sets a precedent that you can cite in your own §19(1) First Appeal or §19(3) Second Appeal. Information Commissions and FAAs are bound to consider properly cited authority. ===== Citizen action steps if your own RTI is being refused on similar grounds ===== - Day 30 — silence by PIO = deemed refusal under §7(2). File §19(1) First Appeal in 30 days using First Appeal Builder. - Day 60-90 — if FAA also refuses, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities). - Beyond 18 months pending — writ petition under Article 226 to the High Court. - Parallel CPGRAMS complaint at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push. ===== Citing this ruling in your appeal ===== Use our Citation Formatter to format the citation correctly. Pair with Bhagat Singh v. CIC (2007) (procedural objections) and Adesh Kumar v. UoI (2014) (irrelevance is not a ground) — these two Delhi HC rulings cover most everyday refusal scenarios. ===== Related landmark RTI rulings ===== * CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Constitution Bench) — office of CJI is public authority * Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI — IC vacancies + transparency * Girish Deshpande — §8(1)(j) personal information test * Bhagat Singh v. CIC — procedural compliance * Adesh Kumar v. UoI — irrelevance is not a ground * Full case-law database (300+) ===== Related on RTI Wiki ===== * AI RTI Drafter * First Appeal Builder * Master directory of landmark RTI rulings * RTI Act, 2005 ===== Original case metadata — Related ===== * RTI Case-Law Search — full corpus * PIO/FAA Knowledge Base * 10 landmark Supreme Court RTI rulings * High Court RTI rulings * Landmark CIC decisions * RTI Act, 2005 — full text Last reviewed: 23 April 2026.