Right to Information Wiki
Sandeep Khanna v. State of Punjab

§33 MGNREGA delay compensation is automatic; no demand needed. Sandeep Khanna v. State of Punjab (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2021-11-04) //CWP No.

Sandeep Khanna v. State of Punjab

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

  1. Day 30 — silence by PIO = deemed refusal under §7(2). File §19(1) First Appeal in 30 days using First Appeal Builder.
  2. Day 60-90 — if FAA also refuses, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities).
  3. Beyond 18 months pending — writ petition under Article 226 to the High Court.
  4. 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.