Proceedings of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly held at 9.30 a.m. on Monday the 13th September, 1976, in the Assembly Chamber, Shillong, with the Hon. Speaker in the Chair.

Present :- Ministers Seven, Minister of State Three, Members Thirty five.

Mr. Speaker :- Let us begin the business of the day by taking up Unstarred Question.

UNSTARRED QUESTIONS

(Replies to which were placed on the Table)

Imposition of Urban Land Ceiling Act in Shillong Town

Shri Samarendra Sangma asked :

4. Will the Minister in charge of Revenue be pleased to state -

        (a) The extent of surplus lands which may be available by imposing urban land ceiling in Shillong Town ?

        (b) The number of landless person likely to benefit by imposing urban land ceiling in Shillong Town?

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Revenue) replied :

        4. (a) and (b) - Steps for having the areas in Shillong and its suburbs surveyed are being taken. Until this is done it is not possible to say the extent of surplus land that may be available and how many persons will be benefited by the implementation of the Urban Land Ceiling Act.

Shri Humphrey Hadem :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, what is the maximum area of land allowed under the Act?

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Revenue) : It is in the Act.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Has Shillong been notified as one of those cities or townships in India ?

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Revenue) : Not yet.

Zuddary System in Garo Hills.

Shri Samarendra Sangma asked :

        5. Will the Minister in charge of Revenue be pleased to state that what actions have been taken by the Government to do away with the Zuddary System which is still prevalent in Mouza No. VIII Garo Hills?

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Revenue) replied :

        5. - Government proposed to acquire an area of about 785 hectares of land falling under Jotedari system in Mouza No. VIII of the Garo Hills District.

        The acquisition Notification under Section 3 of Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaries Act, 1951 as adopted by Meghalaya is under issue.

        An amount of Rs.70,000 (Rupees seventy thousand) has not provide in the current year's budget for payment of necessary compensation.

Payment of compensation of the Zaminder in the Garo Hills District

Shri Samarendra Sangma asked :

        6. Will the Minister in charge of Finance be pleased to State whether any financial assistance is given to the Garo Hills District Council to do away with the compensation of Zamindars in the District.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Revenue) replied :

        6. An amount of Rs.3.85 lakhs has been provided in the current year's budget (1976-77) for payment of compensation of Zamindars in the Garo Hills District.

Re-employment of the Retired Principal of the Jowai Government High School.

Shri H.E. Pohshna asked :

7. Will the Minister in charge of Education be pleased to state -

(a) Whether it is a fact that the retired Principal of the Jowai Government High School has been re-employed ?
(b) If so, why ?
(c)  Whether it is a fact that as a result of the retirement of the  Principal, one Lady teacher was promoted to the post of the Principal
(d) If so, the name of the teacher and where and in what position she is serving now ?

Shri P.G. Marbaniang (Minister of State in charge of Education) replied :

7.    (a) - Yes.

       (b) - In the exigencies of public service.

        (c) & (d) - Nobody was promoted to the post of Principal The senior most Assistant Teacher in the Institution, namely, Shrimati C. Lamare was allowed to hold charge of the post of Principal in addition to her own duties. On resumption of duties by Shri R. Chyne on 2nd August, 1976, Shrimati C. Lamare ceased to hold charge of the post of Principal and she continues to hold exclusively her own post as Assistant teacher.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- 7(b). Where has he been re-employed?

Shri P.G. Marbaniang (Minister of State in charge of Education) : In the same school, Mr. Speaker, Sir.

Declaration of Tura as a Municipal Town.

Shri Samarendra Sangma asked :

        8. Will the Minister in charge of Municipal Administration be pleased to state what steps Government has taken to declared Tura as a Municipal Town ?

Shri P.R. Kyndiah (Minister in-charge of Municipal Administration) replied :

        8 - The matter is under active consideration of Government.

Accommodation of B.A.D.O. of Zikzak and their Powers and Function

Shri Samarendra Sangma asked :

        9. Will the Minister of Border Areas Development be pleased to state -

(a) Whether any arrangement for the accommodation of the B.A.D.O. of Zikzak at the Block Headquarters has been made?
(b) If not, when will it be made?
 (c)  What are the Power and functions of the Border Areas Development Officers ?
(d) Whether the B.A.D.Os. have been adequately instructed by the Government in this regard ?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister, Border Areas Development) replied :

        9. (a) - B.D.Os were instructed to provide office accommodation for B.A.D.Os in the Block buildings where  available.

        (b) - Does not arise in view of (a) above.

        (c) - The duties and functions of the Border Areas Development Officers are -

        (i) Collection of field data for systematic assessment of the economic condition of the border areas.

        (ii) Collection of relevant information from various departments and co-ordination whatever required.

        (iii) Preparation of progress reports in respect of scheme implemented in the border areas.

        (iv) Assist the deputy Commissioner and Planning Board in under taking a comprehensive, quantitative and systematic study of the border areas and their economic problems.

        (v) Implementation of the Border Areas Marketing Scheme under the supervision and control of the Department of Agriculture.

        The B.A.D.Os. have been empowered to draw their own salary and T.A. and also the salary and T.A. of their peons.

        (d) - Yes, when they were under the administrative control of the D.Cs. At present, they are under the administrative control of the Agriculture Department.

Block Development Officers in the State

Shri H.E. Pohshna asked :

        10. Will the Minister in charge of Community Development be pleased to state that the names of all Block Development Officers in the State with their scales of pay and dates of posting in their present posts?

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Community Development etc.) replied :

        10. - A statement is placed on the Table of the House.

Construction of Police Outpost at Sibbari

Shri J.C. Marak asked :

11. Will the Chief Minister be pleased to state -

        (a) When will the building of the Police Outpost be constructed at Sibbari ?

        (b) Whether the Government proposes to renovate the Tura Police Office ?

Shri Williamson A. Sangma (Chief Minister) replied :

11. (a) - There is no Police Outpost at Sibbari  at present.

      (b) - No.

Shri Plansing Marak : Was there any proposal to have a police Outpost at Sibbari ?

Shri Williamson A. Sangma (Chief Minister) : Not yet, Sir.

Shri Jackman Marak :- That answer to 11 (a) is that there is no police Outpost at Sibbari at present, but for this purpose, land has already been acquired, Mr. Speaker, Sir.

Mr. Speaker :- That is a piece of information and not a question.

Shri Williamson A. Sangma (Chief Minister) : Sir, I can give further information on this. Though there is no police outpost at present, there is a proposal to utilise the staff of the Emergency Outpost at Baghmara which looks after the law and order matters on the border.

D.C's order for suspension of the Bullfight in Mynso Dolloiship, Jaintia Hills District.

Shri Humphrey Hadem asked :

12. Will the Chief Minister be pleased to state -

(a) Whether it is a fact that the bullfight (Iadaw Masi) in Mynso Dolloiship in Jaintia Hills District scheduled to be held on 16th July 1975 was suspended as per D.C.'s order No.GEN.18/75/20, dated, 12th July 1975?
(b) If so, was there any defaulter?
 (c)  What action had been taken against such person ?
(d) When and on what date the permission was granted later on ?

Shri Williamson A. Sangma (Chief Minister) replied :

12. (a) - Yes.

      (b) - No Bullfight took place in Mynso proper on 16th July 1875, but a bullfight was held at a place about 4 miles from Mynso village on 16th July, 1975 where a thousand people attended. The bullfight passed off peacefully.

      (c) - None was arrested or prosecuted.

     (d) - Permission was granted later on for holding the bullfight on 1st August 1975, by an order dated 28th July 1971 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jaintia Hills.

Shri Humphrey Hadem :- 12(b). Whether that place is in Mynso Dolloiship, Sir ?

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Subsequently, Yes.

Shri Humphrey Hadem :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, whether permission was granted for the bullfight to be held at that particular place?

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Permission was given for conducting the bull fight at Mynso village.

Shri Humphrey Hadem :- That was on 16th July 1975. Whether permission was granted for the bull fight.

Mr. Speaker :- But I saw bull fight everywhere.

Shri Humphrey Hadem :- But this is connected with some order of the Deputy Commissioner.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Although permission was given, the bull fight was postpones, as in the previous occasion there was bloodshed, drinking, dancing, gambling in which two men died and a number of people injured. Therefore, it was consider necessary that before staging the traditional bull fight, some sort of understanding should be arrived at

Mr. Speaker :- His question was whether the people took permission from the authority for this bull fight that took place on the 16th.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- No, Sir.

Shri Humphrey Hadem :- It is a fact that the implementation of the suspension order was entrusted to the Circle Inspector of Police of Jaintia Hills District ?

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- On the day about 4 miles from the usual place, the bull fight took place.

Shri Humphrey Hadem :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, ..................

(Voices - he has crossed three)

Shri Humphrey Hadem :- With the permission of the Chair. I may be allowed to go on, I have 5 questions more.

Mr. Speaker :- No more bull fight, please. (laughter)

Shri Humphrey Hadem :- Very well, Sir, I will take recourse to some other procedure.

Maximum and Minimum rate of tenders

Shri Choronsing Sangma asked :

13. Will the Minister -in-charge of P.W.D (R. and B.) be pleased to state -

(a) Whether the Government has instructed all the Divisions and Subdivision P.W.D. (R. and B.) concerned with regard to the maximum or minimum less P.C. rate of tenders ?
(b) If so, whether the same will be applicable in respect of tender works in other Government Department like P.H.E, Agriculture, Soil Conservation and C.D. Blocks ?

Shri P.R. Kyndiah [Minister in charge, P.W.D. (R. and B.)] replied :

13. (a) - Yes, i.e. to discourage settlement of contract at rates less than 10 per cent of the schedule of rates.

      (b) - The instructions issued are applicable to the Public Works Department.

Shri Plansing Marak :- 13(a) Is it actually in operation or only on paper ?

Shri P.R. Kyndiah (Minister, P.W.D.) :- It is generally in operation.

Construction of a Stadium at Jowai

Shri H.E. Pohshna asked :

14. Will the Minister in charge of Sports be pleased to state when will the construction of the stadium at Jowai be started and how much money has been collected from the public and clubs?

Shri P.G. Marbaniang (Minister of State, incharge of Sports) replied :

        14. At present, there is no proposal for the construction of a stadium at Jowai.

        The Government is not aware of any collection made for the purpose.


DISCUSSION UNDER RULE 49

Mr. Speaker :- Let us pass on to the next item. Prof. M.N. Majaw to bring to the notice of the House certain matters under Rule 49.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would only like to seek a clarification from the Health Minister as it has been brought to my notice that some new students of Meghalaya staying in Medical colleges in Assam were served with notices asking them to leave the colleges because it appeared that the Government of Meghalaya had not cleared its dues or scholarships or fees to be sent of these colleges. May we have some clarification on the matter.

Shri Sandford K. Marak (Minister Health) - Mr. Speaker, Sir, there is no question of non-receipt of stipendaries or scholarships by Assam Government. Most probably, the hon. Member must have been mis-informed by some friends. But the fact is that some difficulties arose this time because the Assam Government wanted that contribution should be made first and they demanded Rs.1 lakhs from the students for the whole course.

Mr. Speaker :- In other words it applies to the new students.

Shri Sandford K. Marak (Minister Health) - At the beginning they would not grant admission for them, but then we had negotiated with the Government of Assam and ultimately they have agreed and almost all the students have got admission now. Actually we have to share 50 per cent matching contribution, but they demanded about one lakh of rupees for each student for the whole course which we could not agree and we are still negotiating with the Government of Assam. Pending that agreement to be arrived at, we requested the Government of Assam to give admission tot he students which they have complied with.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) - Mr. Speaker, Sir, actually the position is like this. Under section 60 of the North Eastern Areas Re-organisation Act, there is a list of the institutions, including medical colleges in Assam, where the same facilities should be continued to be available for the State of Meghalaya. Similarly, when the colleges are situated in Meghalaya seats are made available to the students of Assam. An understanding should be arrived at between the two States, including the question of contribution. A meeting took place, but unfortunately, no agreement could be arrived at. Therefore, it would not be correct on the part of the Government of Assam, without any agreement, to lay down a condition that the students should first clear the contribution to the tune of Rs.1 lakh for the whole course. However, it is very fortunate that this had been recognised by the Government of Assam, and our students have been allowed admission without a pre-condition of paying the entire amount of Rs.1 lakhs.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Are we to understand that these financial arrangements have finalised?

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Not yet,  Sir, but pending final agreement our students have been allowed admission.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Therefore, there is no cause for students being served with quit notices.

Shri Sandford K. Marak (Minister Health) - Actually they were not served with quit notices. They were refused admission and the students wanted to come back not knowing whether they will be admitted or not. Many of the parents of these students came to me expressing their anxiety over the matter and ultimately the Government of Assam has agreed to give admission of all the students even without payment of late admission fee.

Mr. Speaker :- Let us pass to item No.2 - Discussion on the supplementary Demands for Grants and Supplementary Appropriation for 1976-77


VOTING ON SUPPLEMENTARY DEMANDS FOR GRANTS

Item No.3. - Voting on Supplementary demands for grants. Chief Minister to move Grant No.1.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.89,755 be granted to the Minister in charge to defray certain charge which will come in the course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1977 for the administration of the head "253 - District administration".

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. I have received one cut motion which stands in the name of Prof. M.N. Majaw and Mr. H.S. Lyngdoh. Any one of them can move.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the total provision of Rs.89,755 under Supplementary Demand No.1 Major Head "253-District Administration" at page 1 of the List of Supplementary Demands be reduced by Rs.100 i.e. the amount of the whole Supplementary Demand of Rs.89,755 do stand reduced by Rs.100.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now you can discuss.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, we all aware of the need for economy in Government expenditure and no less a person than the Prime Minister herself would certainly approve of measures whereby huge Government expenditure is reduced. Now I am not in any way trying to disapprove of the entire demand. I have moved a token cut in order to ventilate one specific grievance - public complaint regarding the excessive expenditure in one or two of the heads, for example, construction of barricades and platform for music party at Garrison ground and the cost of Rs.55,780 which is almost two thirds of the entire demand of Rs.89,755. I can talk of the other two items, No.2 and No.6 No.2-construction of bamboo barricades along the road from Barrick Point to Shillong Jowai road. I do feel that this item No.3 which is listed at page 2 is somewhat excessive. Therefore, may we have the breakup of this expenditure from the Leader of the House who has moved the Demand for this expenditure of Rs.55,780 and also the names of the contractors who were entrusted with the work, if any.

Mr. Speaker :- At the beginning, the Government will give the break-up of the expenditure and no whomsoever the work is entrusted is entirely the responsibility of the Government.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) - I can give my reply Mr. Speaker, Sir,. In the first instance I was taken by surprise when this cut motion was tabled by Prof. Majaw, the hon. Member from Mawhati and also by the hon. Member from Pariong. For the visit of the Prime Minister, there was a combined committee consisting of representatives of different political parties of which Mr. Hopingstone Lyngdoh was also a Member, wherein a detailed programme has been discussed and approved. Apart from what has been decided by the Committee, we have been guided by the instructions from the Government of India on the construction of bamboo barricades all along the road from Barrick point of Shillong Jowai road. Therefore, it will not be correct to say that we have gone beyond what is required because everything has been done in accordance with the instruction from the Government of India, though it may be that the Prime Minister herself expressed unhappiness about it. But it cannot be helped because we have to carry out all the security measures as per instruction from the Government of India.

        It has been stated that the amount spent for the barricade was too much. I will give the full figures.

1.

Barricade inside the field and parking places - Rs.18,831
2. Barricade along the road - Rs.21,726
3. Painting of existing rostrum - Rs.500
4. Double bamboo walling and covering with pine leaves - Rs.1,813
5. Leveling and dressing including speeding of metal in approach road. - Rs.2,000
6. Electrification - Rs.4,000
7. Repairing of existing gate - Rs.200
8.  Dismantling of barricade and shorting. - Rs.3,000

Altogether the amounts comes to

- Rs.56,820

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- But the total is Rs.55,780 in item No.3 whether the total is Rs.55,780?

Mr. Speaker :- In fact, the Chief Minister has also combined item No.4. If you minus it the total comes to Rs.55,780.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- I do not get the point, but this item No.3 is for construction of barricades and platforms for music party.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Originally, there was a proposal to have some sort of culture show, but as we have been repeating the same type of cultural shows, we thought it better to have some sort of music and songs composed specially for the Prime Minister and also including the 20-Point Programme. There was some sort of platform which could have been kept hidden. But it was decided that there should be some sort of steps or something of a gallory in the playground had to be constructed so that the participants can stay in the rows.

Mr. Speaker :- What Prof. Majaw wanted it the particular expenditure on that platform.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- I do not have the figures Originally it was Rs.4,720.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- How do you come to the total of 55,000?

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- According to the figures available with me, it was Rs.55,780 ?

Shri Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- I would also like to say something on what has been expressed by the Chief Minister. In fact, the expenditure for this whole operation was not brought to the Committee. Of course the programme for the visit of the Prime Minister was brought before the Committee and the Committee approved of it. Therefore, it is wrong to say that every item of this programme has been brought before and approved by the Committee. Our cut motion here is not to object to the entire expenditure of this operation, but only on this particular item, namely, the construction of the platform which has been excessive, i.e. Rs.55,780. Only on that point, we are seeking clarification from the Government.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) - Only for the platform, the amount was Rs.2,000. Now it is correct that the estimates where not brought before the Reception Committee and the Reception Committee is not supposed to go through them. Once we agree on what is to be done, it is the concerning departments to make proper estimates. Once the programmes has been agreed to, the details are to be worked out by the concerning departments.

Shri Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- But the Committee cannot be blamed for this excessive expenditure.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- This is regarding the various programme which had been finalised for which money had to be spent. It is in that context that the money had been spent. So I would request the hon. Movers to kindly withdraw the cut motion.

Mr. Speaker :- I think I have to make certain observation on this demand. Sometimes it becomes embarrassing to the House to discuss certain demands which are unavoidable. It is true that the Chief Minister or the Prime Minister or any person holding high office may not like that certain expenditure should be spent. But from the point of view of security of such persons holding high offices or positions they have to be provided with the best security measures so that we may avoid any untoward incident that may happen. We may consider any such untoward incident that may happen when people in their jubilation may rush to the forefront for closer view of the Prime Minister. That is why the whole ground was divided into a number of sections and the barricades were constructed. The Chief Minister has explained the reasons for the additional amount. At least both the hon. Members may understand sand so far as the committee is concerned, I think it is for the goodwill that has been shown and expressed by all the political parties, which are representing in this House, who are represented in the committee, which also expressed the goodwill and confidence that we have in the Prime Minister. So far as the expenditure is concerned, it is entirely the Government and not the committee.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, it should not be regarded that we have such an intention. Anyway, for the best security arrangements for the visit of such a high dignitary as the Prime Minister to our State, we are one. But the high quantum of expenditure could have been brought down. On the platform alone the expenditure was excessive which, as the Chief Minister has pointed out, could have been curtailed. From this consideration, it might have been an infructuous expenditure.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- There is no infructuous expenditure.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- After the clarification from the Chief Minister, we are withdrawing our cut motion.

Mr. Speaker :- Has the hon. Member leave of the House to withdraw the cut motion ? (voices yes yes). The cut motion is with leave of the House withdrawn.

        Now the question is that an additional amount of Rs.89,755 be granted to the Minister in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1977 for the administration of the head "253-District Administration." (The motion was carried by voice vote and demand was passed.)

Grant No.2.

Shri P.R. Kyndiah (Minister, P.W.D.) - I beg, Sir, to move that in additional amount of Rs.1,21,050 be granted to the Minister in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1977 for the administration of the head "259-Public Works."

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. I have received one cut motion by Prof. M.N. Majaw and Shri H.S. Lyngdoh. Now any one can move.

Shri H.S. Lyngdoh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the total provision of Rs.1,21,050 under supplementary demand No.2 - major head "259-Public Works" at page 2 of the list of supplementary demands be reduced by Rs.100 i.e. the amount of the whole supplementary demand of Rs.1,21,050 do stand reduced by Rs.100.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved.

Shri H.S. Lyngdoh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, in moving this cut motion I would like to say what we are grateful to Government for brining this supplementary demand for the construction of these treasury buildings etc. in Nongstoin and Simsagiri though I feel that this should have been done right from the very inception of the sub-divisions. People have been narrating their difficulties in these areas because of the fact hat some Government transactions have been carried on in these subdivisions while there were no treasuries at all and that bills have to be cashed in Shillong and Tura. Sir, it is therefore very essential to open such treasuries there. But Sir, what has prompted us to bring this cut motion is because the Government have stated that there was no such provision here to improve the Shillong Treasury. But one sees such heavy rush and the heavy work is being of carried out in Shillong Treasury that it is very inconvenient for the people to come out in Shillong Treasury that it is very inconvenient for the people to come and present their bills in this treasury. We members of the Assembly itself have experienced such inconvenience. I have experienced, Sir, one has to stand for a long time in a long line outside the Shillong Treasury. There is always a queue there outside and on the verandah of the building. The workers, the officers who are working there cannot even work properly because of the rush of heavy works and congestion. Sir, every time we find that bills are being misplaced because of the congestion, and the clerks have to move from one table to the other, mixing up files and papers because there is no more place. So Sir, we see there is greater need for this treasury in Shillong to be improved. With these few words, Sir, I move the cut motion.

Shri W. Syiemiong :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, in supporting this cut motion moved by my friend from Pariong, I have to point to make. From a cursory glance of the schedule, one will see another amount of rupees one lakh which was requested today for the expenditure of these three treasury buildings. Sir, from the explanatory note it is very difficult to understand how the estimates have been prepared from extension of the treasury buildings at Tura and for extension of the sub treasuries at Williamnagar and Simsangiri. But for opening of new treasury at Nongstoin, an amount of Rs.20,100 only has  been earmarked. That is something hard to believe unless we are given a full explanation as to how only for extension so much amount has been extended whereas for opening of a new branch of treasury only an amount of Rs.20,100 has been earmarked.

Mr. Speaker :- Mr. Syiemiong, this is not the actual grievance of the mover. I think it is heartening to note that for the extension of existing Treasury buildings at Tura and Williamnagar, Rs.30,003 and Rs.68,650 respectively have been earmarked. That is encouraging to see that for these two places there would be better facilities. But the actual grievances that was brought forward is lack of adequate facilities.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would also support the mover of the cut motion. While in no way we are trying to minimise the importance of proper need for Treasuries in other part of the State whether at Tura Jowai or elsewhere, we must also emphasise the extreme lack of facilities at the Shillong Treasury office. So many have complained right from the hon. Members of this House down to very humble people who should also received equal treatment that sometimes they are to wait for days together to get a bill passed. Even this Treasury is not equipped with adequate number of tokens. Sometimes they give just a piece of torn rugged dirty paper with a seal only and that has to be produced to State Bank of India. Sometimes transaction of lakhs of rupees are being conducted through this kind of tokens. Now at page 5 it has been stated that at Nongstoin Treasury a sum of rupees has been allocated for construction of a strong room for the State Bank. I do not know how Finance will adjust this expenditure. Because the State Bank should have its own Strong room with its own expense. The treasury should have its separate Strong Room. So, we are to get some clarification on these points.

Mr. Speaker :- Though it concerns the P.W.D Department but it appears the explanation is to be given by the Finance Minister.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister Finance) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the main grievances that have been expressed by the hon. Members were regarding the Shillong Treasury. In fact during the last few months we have received both verbal and written complaints about the Treasury for shortage of both accommodation and staff. Therefore, we do realise the grievances of the public about the Shillong Treasury and as a first stop we are making arrangement for having and additional room for the staff of the Shillong Treasury. Secondly, we are also considering the question of payment by cheques system  and thirdly, we are considering, if is is absolutely necessary, to have the second Treasury building in Shillong. That is all I can say so far as Shillong Treasury is concerned which I hope if implemented, will meet the demand of the people. Now regarding the Strong Room for Nongstoin Treasury, we have not yet constructed our own Government building. But because of the urgency of a treasury at Nongstoin, we had to make an arrangement with the State Bank there. So, I think these are the points raised.

Mr. Speaker :- Whether the Strong Room is within the State Bank building?

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister Finance) :- I do not know the details of arrangement. Any way it is only a temporary arrangement.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- But the question is that it has been clearly printed that fund has been allocated for construction of a Strong Room for the State Bank Branch.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister Finance) :- Now I have got the information. We have our own building but for time being the State Bank will operate together with the Treasury.

Mr. Speaker :- In fact, this is a new point which is not in the grievance. But it is a question of principle and I think the Finance Minister will have to look each and every aspect of it. It is the duty of the Finance Minister to find out in future. Nevertheless, that grievances is not in the cut motion.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister Finance) :- In fact, the cut motion does not relate to this and I was not prepared to reply to the points raised.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- In one way, it does not relate but since the place has been taken up for the construction of strong room .........

Mr. Speaker :- I have already requested the Finance Minister to pursue the matter.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister Finance) :- With regard to this main grievances in the Shillong Treasury, I have got three alternative proposals and when they are implemented, I hope the condition would further improved.

Shri H.S. Lyngdoh :- We would like, Mr. Speaker, Sir, to have a very clear reply from the Finance Minister because all these grievances have been raised several times in this august House and time and again, there were promises and assurances the Shillong Treasury will be improved.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister Finance) :- Yes, Sir, it was raised also during the last few months. I have received complaints both verbal and written and in fact, officers were called for consultation on the proposal and they are now under consideration by the Government. I think they will be implemented in the next few months. With this assurance, I would request the hon. mover of this cut motion to withdraw it.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Because this demand is for the consolidated amount of all the treasury officers but yet they are to be implemented piecemeal.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister Finance) :- They are not the same nature and same demand.

Shri H. Hadem :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. There is exchange of words between all sides without addressing to the Chair.

Mr. Speaker :- It is not point of order, it comes naturally. I think the suggestion made by the hon. mover has been taken note by the Shillong Treasury with such a huge volume to work that was rushed day in a day out can not be compared with the Treasuries at Nongstoin, Williamnagar and Tura. That is why the Finance Minister has taken steps.

Shri H.S. Lyngdoh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, since this matter also refers to the P.W.D it is not proper for the Minister, P.W.D. to say something?

Mr. Speaker :- I think the Minister, P.W.D may say and explain on the implementation of those proposals.

Shri P.R. Kyndiah (Minister, P.W.D) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, since I am very much attracted to say something and in view of the explanation given by the Finance Minister, I would simply request the hon. Member Shri H.S. Lyngdoh, to withdraw his Cut Motion. (Laughter).

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, can we not have some assurance from the P.W.D Minister that there would be some haste in constructing those additional rooms as proposed by the Finance Minister for the Treasury office at Shillong.

Shri P.R. Kyndiah (Minister, P.W.D) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, since the proposal have been finalised, I can assure the hon. members that my department will execute them.

Shri F.K. Mawlot :- The question of the Nongstoin Treasury has not been solved. I would like to refer to the opening of a Nongstoin Branch of the State Bank of India. A long time back, they have approached the S.D.O. (Civil) for the building i.e. to occupy one of the building of the Government. Therefore, the construction of a strong room also will have to be made in a Government building. That is why we do not have a Treasury of our own in Nongstoin as this building also was meant for the Branch of the State Bank of India at Nongstoin.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister Finance) - As soon as the State Bank of India will have their own building then you have to shift there and you will have your own treasury.

Shri H.S. Lyngdoh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, since assurance have come from all sides and with the promised of the Finance and P.W.D. Ministers that the Shillong Treasury will be improved within a few months time, I withdraw my Cut motion.

Mr. Speaker :- Has the hon. Member leave of the House to withdraw the Cut motion?

(Voices : Yes, yes)

The cut motion is with leave of the House withdrawn

Mr. Speaker :- Let me put the question before the House. The Question is that an additional amount of Rs.121,050 be granted to the Minister in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1977 for the administration of the head - "259 - Public Works".

(The motion was carried and the demand was passed)

        Now, the Chief Minister to move Grant No.3.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- On the recommendation of the Governor, I beg, Sir, to move an additional amount of Rs.11,000, be granted to the Minister in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1977 for the administration of the Head - "265-Other Administrative Services-IV-Census, Vital Statistics, Guest Houses, etc."

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Since there is no cut motion, let me put the question before the House. The question is that an additional amount of Rs.11,000, be granted to the Minister in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1977 for the administration of the Head - "265-Other Administrative Services-IV-Census, Vital Statistics, Guest Houses, etc."

(The motion was carried and the demand was passed)

        Now, the Minister incharge of Finance to move Grant No.4.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh, (Minister, Finance) :- On the recommendation of the Governor, I beg Sir, to move that an additional amounts of Rs.7,49,987 be granted to the Minister in charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1977, for the administration of the head - "288-Social Security and Welfare-B-II-Relief and Rehabilitation of Displaced persons".

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. I have received one cut motion which stands in the name of Prof. M.N. Majaw and Shri H.S. Lyngdoh. Any one of them can move.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the total provision of Rs.7,49,987 under Supplementary Demand No.4, Major Head "288-Social Security and Welfare-B-II-Relief and Rehabilitation of Displaced persons" Sub-head "4-Other Expenditure" at page 7 of the List of Supplementary Demands be reduced by Rs.100 i.e., the amount of the whole Supplementary Demand of Rs.7,49,987 do stand reduce by Rs.100.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. You can initiate the discussion.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, before I speak on these outstanding dues may I point out to the list of Supplementary Demands at page 7. In the printing of these sums of money it is stated here that Grant originally voted by the Assembly was Rs.8,20,000 and the additional amount now required is Rs.7,49,987. Again, the grant originally voted by the Assembly was stated to be Rs.1,46,000 and the additional amount required now is Rs.7,49,987 the total of which should be about Rs.9,00,000 and odds. It should not be Rs.7,49,987 and this Rs.8,20,000 is the figure of break up given in the minor sub-head. Actually, Sir, if this total has been shown separately, they should have inserted the total column between the grant originally voted by the Assembly and the additional amount required. This is very important that both sum are to be totaled up. I would like to draw the attention of this august House to the List of Supplementary Demands for Grants and Supplementary Appropriation for 1975-76 which was passed in March, 1976. I may request the Finance Minister to arm himself with a copy of this - page 74 where the identical subject comes up. Mr. Speaker, Sir, if you compare page 74 of the List  of Supplementary Demands which were passed in March this year for the present financial year, you will find that a sum of money had been asked for the very same matter. Rs.50,00,000 additional amount was required and if you compare the explanatory more in this list of Supplementary Demands for Grants with those List of Supplementary Demands for Grants at the bottom of page - 7 of today's List of Supplementary Demands for Grants you will find it is more or less a carbon copy. If you take up the List of Supplementary Demands for the year 1975-76 from March, I believe if my information is correct that there 15 lakhs of rupees which were asked for and approved by this august House were ultimately surrendered. The amount was not utilised although in the explanatory note at that time, the Minister had said the very same words as he said now that "as the affected people are pressing very hard and are in great financial hardship" it is proposed to pay 50% of the claims from the State Funds and then to claim reimbursement from the Government of India. So this amount of 15 lakhs of rupees has already been obtained from the Contingency Fund of the State and was regularized. This demand placed in March, 1976 for the Garo people had been drawn from the Contingency Fund of the State and the advance taken was regularised. But I am told that this sum of money has not been distributed but was surrendered. This seems to be right because today also the 13th September, 1976 again to Hon. Minister is bringing this Supplementary Demand without any reference to that amount of 15 lakhs of rupees already sanctioned by this august House in March, of the previous financial year. The total sum is the same that was drawn in March, 1976. The Minister had explained the amount of claims is about Rs.32 lakhs in Garo Hills at that time and the Government of India were moved to sanction the amount but not yet sanctioned but indicated that the claims may be entertained and sanctioned by the State Government.

        Now we all know that supplementary demand is a matter of urgent nature otherwise it would have been placed during the annual financial budget. It is presumed that the nature of the demand is so urgent and that it is an unforeseen expenditure. Therefore, it should have been utilised as it has been demanded and granted by this House. But now they have come back again with the same demand after a lapse of so many months and have again asked for it without any explanation of what happened to that amount of 15 lakhs of rupees which was passed in March, 1976. Mr. Speaker, Sir, that amount has already been obtained by taking an advance from the Contingency fund and the present proposal is to regularise the advance they have stated before and this amount if 15 lakhs of rupees was passed  by this House in March, 1976. I feel some explanation is due from the Minister in charge and then Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is because of this procedural delay that there have been complaints. It is very right that the Minister asking for the amount for the affected people. Certainly, not only in Garo Hills but also in Khasi Hills that some Members of this House have been asked to plead with the Government about this demand. But unless there is earnestness on the part of the Government to utilise this sum placed at its disposal, it will be very difficult for us to believe in the great urgency of the matter and of the need of asking for this sum placed and at its disposal it will be very difficult for us to believe in the great urgency of the matter and of the need of asking of this fund when many moths ago the same money way allotted but was not totally utilised.

Mr. Speaker :- Anybody to support  the cut motion.

Shri H.S. Lyngdoh :- I support the cut motion, Mr. Speaker, Sir.

Mr. Speaker :- Before the hon. Members may take part on this discussion, I would like to correct the statement made by the hon. Member that the Supplementary Demands are usually of urgent nature. But in modern days Supplementary Demands are made also for many other purposes like adjustments in the accounts between the State Government and the Central Government or adjustment between the State Government accounts and many other authorities. That is why Supplementary Demand is becoming more or less important.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, in this Explanatory note of both the Demands the urgency of the matter has been stressed by the Hon. Minister.

Mr. Speaker :- It is the urgency of payment. Will the Minister now reply?

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister Finance) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, as you yourself had remarked that Supplementary Demand is not a matter only or urgency but is also a matter of something that cannot be foreseen or cannot be assessed or calculated as how much amount will be required for payment. We all know that there are dues as the enquiry reveals in so far as this claim is concerned which we cannot put it in the Budget proposals because we do not know the amount that would be demanded first by the people and then by the Government and then by the Military authorities and finally by the Government of India. So we cannot foreseen as to what this amount will be because the very nature of the enquiries into these matters take a very long time since there are three stages of enquiries in this particular matter. First of all it is met by the Government and then it is placed before the Board of the Military authorities to examine the question and then when it is finally agreed upon by the State Government and the Military Board it has got to be approved by the Government of India. As the enquiry was conducted from one village to another the result came out. When this question of payment come in, we know the definite amount to be paid by drawing from the Contingency Fund of the State. Therefore, first of all we drew 15 lakhs of rupees and this amount was placed before the Assembly for regularisation.  As other results of enquiries and verifications were going on we came to know that another sum of money was required and so on because of the urgency of the matter for  which payment was to be made by drawing from the Contingency Fund of the State which has to be regularised through this Demand. In so far as delay is concerned. I have already said earlier that enquiries into these matters were a long process because the Military authorities also have got certain date for the Military Board to meet  and then they will go and verify which takes a long time. We had tried very much to hasten the enquiries and the damages. So, in any case, we will try our best to expedite these enquiries and assessment so that these claims and demands will not take so much time. Now we even have a difference of opinion with the Military Board and up till now the matter has not been finalised like the case of Umsyiem. With regard to Umsyiem, the enquiries had been taken up in 1973. Then, in 1974, the Military Board did not agree and so the matter was again taken up with the Government of India. Now the matter is under the process of being settled. So it does take time and I have already said that we would try to expedite the matter.

        So far as the sums are concerned and also about the apparent discrepancy, I would say that the total grant is Rs.8,20,000. Out of this, Rs.1,46,000/- is provided for this specific purpose. In addition, the Supplementary demand is Rs.7,49,983/-

Prof M.N. Majaw :- 987.

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) -  The total is, therefore, Rs.8,.95,987. The amount distributed last year was Rs.5,35,567. I have explained the nature of this supplementary demand. We have also assured the House of our best efforts to expedite the enquiries and the assessment of these dues on account of damages done during the Bangladesh War. So I would request the hon. mover to withdraw the cut motion.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, we would first like to have some explanation of what happened to the 15 lakhs which was voted by this House in March, 1976.

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh, (Minister, Finance) - That has been paid already.

Mr. Speaker :- Yes, stage by stage. That is why it appears that there has been delay.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, is the Minister stating here and now that the whole sum of Rs.15 lakhs, which was granted as supplementary demand during March 1976 for the last financial year, had been distributed ?

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- I said that it was under the process of distribution but at that time there were some complications. Naturally, therefore, not the whole amount could be paid. At the same time, it was not a question of surrender as it was in the process of being paid.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Is it or is it not a fact that some parts of this money had been kept during the last financial year ?

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- I could not remember exactly. The question was the payment of Rs.15 lakhs and the process did take time because it was not an easy matter. Therefore, an amount of Rs.5,35,000 had been paid by that time and at the same time the financial year had ended. So the balance had lapsed.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- In other words, it was surrendered. That is what we would like to find out. At one time it was said that the sums had been paid and at ....

Mr. Speaker :- I think this is not necessary. The question of surrendering of certain sums of money from any Department to the Finance Department comes only at the end of the financial year.

Shri. F.K. Mawlot :- It seems that the complication arises from the statement of the Finance Minister that at one time the whole amount was paid.

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- No, it was in the process.. . . . . 

Mr. Speaker :- I think it is due to misinterpretation of the language. The Minister was saying that it was in the process of being paid but, at the end of the financial year it was discovered that the whole amount could not be spent. That was the language that he used. But, of course, at certain times the figures were not available to the Minister because here the cut motion, which stands in the name of the hon. member, is only to raise the grievances regarding delay in connection with the head of account and not with the arithmetical gymnastics.

Shri. F.K. Mawlot :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, may I put a question in connection with the claim in Jaintia Hills ?

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- There was ....

Mr. Speaker :- I think you should not reply to that.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Do we take that the total of Demand No.4 at page 7, is correct, i.e. , Rs.8,95,987.

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- That is not incorrect.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- What is the basis of adding the total ?

(A voice - The total of the additional amount required. I think it is misleading.)

Mr. Speaker :- I think each and every hon. member will have to learn about the part of budgeting also. It is really a difficult matter to discuss here. It appears the hon. mover does not wish to withdraw. So let me put the question before the House. The question is that the total provision of Rs.7,49,987 on Supplementary Demand No.4, Major Head "288 - Social Security and Welfare-B-II-Relief and Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons" at page 7 of the List of Supplementary Demands be reduced by Rs.100, i.e., the amount of the whole Supplementary Demand of Rs.7,49,987  do stand reduced by Rs. 100.

        (The cut motion was lost by voice vote).

        Now let me put the question before the House. The question is that an additional amount of Rs.7,49,987 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1977, for the administration of the head - "288-Social Security and Welfare-B-II-Relief and Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons".

        (The motion was carried and the demand was passed.)

        Since the Minister-in-charge of Transport is unwell, may I ask the Minister, Health to move Grant No.5 in his stead.

Shri. Sanford K. Marak (Minister, Health) :- Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.3,48,159.00 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of Payment during the year  ending the 31st March, 1977 for the administration of the head "499 - Capital Outlay on Special and Backward Areas-C-North Eastern Areas".

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved and since there is no cut motion I put the question before the House that an additional amount of Rs.3,48,159.00 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1977 for the administration of the head "499-Capital Outlay on Special and Backward Areas-C-North Eastern Areas".

        (The motion was carried and the demand was passed).

        Now I will ask the Minister-in-charge of PWD to move Grant No.6.

Shri. P.R. Kyndiah (Minister, PWD) :- Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.2,00,000.00 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1977 for the administration of the head "505 - Capital Outlay on Agriculture".

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved and since there is no cut motion, I put the question before the House that an additional amount of Rs.2,00,000.00 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1977 for the administration of the head "505 - Capital Outlay on Agriculture."

        (The motion was carried and the demand was passed.)

        The Minister-in-charge of Finance to move Grant No.7.

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.19,500.00 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1977 for the administration of the head "688 - Loans for Social Security and Welfare-I-Relief Measures and Rehabilitation Schemes".

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved and since there is no cut motion, I put the question before the House that an additional amount of Rs.19,500.00 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1977 for the administration of the head "688 - Loans for Social Security and Welfare-I-Relief Measures and Rehabilitation Schemes".

        (The motion was carried and demand was passed )

        Now I will ask the Minister-in-charge of Power to move Grant No.8.

Shri. S.D.D. NicholsRoy (Minister, Power) :- Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.2,40,00,000 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March 1977 for the administration of the head "734 - Loans for Power Projects".

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved and since there is no cut motion, I will put the question before the House that an additional amount of Rs.2,40,00,000 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1977 for the administration of the head "734 - Loans for Power Projects".

        (The motion was carried and the demand was passed.)

        The Minister-in-charge of Finance to move Grant No.9

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.10,00,000.00 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1977 for the administration of the head "766 - Loans to Government Servants".

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved and I have received one cut motion which stands in the name of Prof. M.N. Majaw.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the total provision of Rs.10,00,000.00 under Supplementary Demand No.9, Major Head "766 - Loans to Government Servants", Minor head "E-Other Advances (Non-Plan)". at page 13 of the List of Supplementary Demands be reduced to Rs.1.00 i.e. the amount of the whole supplementary demand of Rs.10,00,000.00 do stand reduced to Re.1.00

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved and now you can initiate the discussion.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, because of the nature of our rules, we have only three types of cut motions that we can move the policy disapproval cut, the economy cut and the token cut. But we have no rules made for two types of motions; one to increase the demand if we feel that it should be increased and the other is to make a change in the name of the demand.

        Now it is very important to declare that this amount should not be granted and the demand be reduced to Re.1/- I would like to propose that instead of it being in the form of advance or loan, it should be in the form of grant. Now Mr. Speaker, Sir, we have spoken a lot about having or not having  children, but when we do have children, it is the duty of the parents to see that they are strong, healthy and well fed. Now the life of a family or the life of the family of a Government employee is very difficult these days, Mr. Speaker, Sir, because they belong to the lower middle class or middle class. Nonetheless they are middle class who have got their needs and demands of their own which are so many and they cannot meet exigencies and expenditure when they are given a very small salary. In fact the poor man in the street, say that the beggar with small needs and desires will have a happier life than that of the middle class family with a small salary. He has to meet so many demands and he has to keep his appearance also. In some advanced countries; Mr. Speaker, Sir, they used to give allowance for certain number of children of parents. For example in West Germany, loans are given from the sixth child onwards and in Great Britain from the third child and onwards. A certain monthly sum is given in the form of childrens allowance or family allowance to the employees in order to help him maintaining his family. Now we do not unfortunately have such a proposal or such a scheme in the Government of Meghalaya .You will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that the children of the Government employee are like the children of any one else in the world or the children or any family. These children have also to be clothed properly educated and well fed and especially fed, because when they are young their hunger is greater. Now, Mr. Speaker, Sir, why cannot we introduce this sort of allowance or grant and which may be scaled up or down accordingly for Government servants in order to help them. You cannot expect a Government employee to give his whole heart and loyal service if his family or children are starving at home. He has to give away certain comforts which will make life easier for him and in order to be able to look after his children. Also perhaps instead of buying three sets of clothes for his children he has to do with only one. Similarly he may want to send his children to a better school but instead has to send them to another which is much less equipped add this is all due to paucity of funds on his part. Also, Mr. Speaker, Sir, if we give the Government employees better salary including allowance, there is less likelihood of his trying to seek better avenues of income when he is quite satisfied. Sometimes they live in a psychosis of fear of being discharged or being compulsorily retired. So it will be a signal gesture on the part of the Government to grant allowance to the children of Government employees so that they will earn not only their loyalty but also affection for which no price can be paid. So Mr. Speaker, Sir, I hope this House will take this into consideration and not by making advances or loans which are recoverable in so many instalments, but by giving outright grant to the Government employees.

Shri. W. Syiemiong :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I support the cut motion.

Shri. F.K. Mawlot :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, in supporting the cut motion, I agree with the hon. mover of the cut motion that Government should try to find out ways and means how to keep the Government servant's mind happy. A Government servant who has taken loan from Government either for residential building or any other purpose is always afraid of the day when Government may come and confiscate his house. Mr. Speaker, Sir, as you know a Government servant, as the hon. mover has explained must find out ways and means to keep his family well fed with the meagre pay he is given and it is very difficult for him. It is also difficult for him to save any amount and so it will be difficult to reimburse the loan which he has taken and there are cases in which the Government servant could not repay the money he has taken within a specific time.

        Now Mr. Speaker, Sir, there are cases in the Government of Assam where such kind of loans are written off. Why they had done so is because they understood the difficulties faced by the poor Government servant and who has taken the loan in order to tide him in his difficulties. So I suggest that if there are such cases in our State also where the Government servant could not repay the loan, than Government should treat the advances as outright grants and or in certain deserving cases the amount should be written off.

Shri. Jormanick Syiem :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the cut motion because as I understand that the demand is for providing loans to Government servants but the Mover of the cut motion has advocated to provide grants to Government servants which is not according to this demand....

Mr. Speaker :- Here is a policy which the hon. Member urged upon the Government to change. They advocated for an alternative policy practically.

Shri. Jormanick Syiem :- Yes. Mr. Speaker, Sir, if the demand is, for granting loan to the Government servants then it means whether this House should pass the grant, when it is a loan, it is a loan, if it is to be a grant, no definite amount can be earmarked for we do not know how many people will ask for maintaining their children or for constructing houses...

Mr. Speaker :- Here I think it is for children education. It is specific.

Shri. Jormanick Syiem :- That has been mentioned by the hon. Mover of the cut motion though, of course, we say that the limited number of family members is 3 children, it is neither here nor there, but the point is whether the demand can be made for giving any grant for Government servants when the demand is for loan. So I donot see how the argument from that side can fit in with this demand for the grant of rupees ten lakhs as loans to the Government servants which is the usual process which the Government always provide for the Government servants who are in need of loans for construction of houses. Therefore, I think the cut motion is not to the point, and should not be accepted to be discussed on the floor of the House.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, by way of clarification may I point out, as we have already said, it is only about the policy ....

Mr. Speaker :- I have understood your point. That is why I have not ruled out. You have pleaded with an alternative policy so far as the grant is concerned. You only urged upon the Finance Minister to treat this whole amount as grant and not as loan.

Shri. M. Reidson Momin :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I also rise to oppose the cut motion moved by the hon. Member from Mawhati where in he has disapproved the Government policy in giving loans to Government servants, which he wanted to be converted into outright grant. Now Sir, as the hon. Member who had spoken before me had started very cleanly that loan is loan whether he is a Government servant or a member of the public. Now knowing fully well that this is a Government loan he cannot simply expect that it is to be written off or it is to be converted into Government grants. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am a responsible man and unless and until I know that this amount is to be repaid or that I am in a position to repay this loan I should not have applied; whether my children are suffering or my family is starving I should at least think first whether I will be able to repay the loan or whether I will be benefited by this loan. There is a different system of granting loans for different purposes like loans for house building, for purchase of scooters or motor cars. When I can apply loan for a motor car, I think it is my responsibility to repay the loan to the Government. When I can think about luxury to have a scooter either to attend office or go elsewhere to attend my duties, I must also realise that this loan has not been given to me as bakshis or as Government grant but I know that I have to repay the loan. So Mr. Speaker, Sir, I do not find in the context of this cut motion that it has to do anything with the Government policy and I quite fall in line with the policy of the Government in this respect. So Sir, with these few words I resume my seat.

Shri. Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to support the cut motion moved by the hon. Mover from Mawhati. I thought what has been expressed by the Mover is enough. But since the hon. Members from the other side rather complicate the issue by stating that it is something like a demand from this side of the House to provide for the poor non-gazetted employees that this loan be converted into grant and that it is a luxury. That is not correct. Our contention is that the Government while bringing this Demand admits that the Government realises the difficulties faced by the low paid employees of the Government.

Mr. Speaker :- Do you mean non-gazetted employees of all categories.

Shri. Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- Yes, Sir, what we are concerned is about the Government servants, non-gazetted employees as has been stated here which means the low-paid Government employees of all categories. This shows that the Government is well conversant with the difficulties of these people to carry on their day to day life more particularly for giving education to their children. Sir, the Government thought that with their poor pay they can neither maintain their children nor give them proper education. That is why they are thinking to give them a chance to get at least education at the present time as the people need education.

        Now Sir, we have know fully well that those who have more are given more, and those who have nothing, even the things which they have, have been taken away from them. This is what we have been experiencing. Now since the Government realises the difficulties of these poor employees and since the Government will find it difficult to raise the pay scale of these employees, they have proposed here loans to provide facilities for education of their children. But this amount which has been provided as loan will not at all meet the needs of the people who deserve loans. If this amount is divided among those Government employees, the recipients of the loan will not get more than Rs.100/- each and instead of rendering help to these people, we are rather putting an unnecessary burden on them who have already been shouldering the burden of maintaining their family and giving education to their children. Therefore, we are pleading that instead of giving them loan to be repaid, Government should give grants to those who are sending their children to schools in order to help them in their difficulties. With these few words I support the motion.

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the wording and classification of heads under this grant have brought about such a serious consideration on the part of the mover and other Speaker. Now, this has nothing to do with the salary or with the various allowances that the Government employees have been getting which question has been critically examined by the Pay Commission and recently we have the report of the Pay Commission. After serious study of the Assam Pay Commission's Report before we arrive at an agreement as under the North-Eastern Area Re-organisation Act, our officers and staff are treated as on deputation from Assam. Therefore, they are legally speaking, Government of Assam's employees. So we examined the Pay Commission's report of Assam as of our own and the recommendations of the Pay Commission have taken into consideration for raising the salaries and allowances of these employees in Meghalaya, and these have been fully implemented. But this is quite a different thing altogether. There are cases where children are helped in the form of scholarship, in the form of books; these are different matters. Here is a simple advance for special occasion. It is for special occasion like the pujas and the Christmas. Government employees used to spend large amount of money during pujas, etc. These advances were used to be given to these Government employees, and during the pujas and Christmas there used to be big spending. Now this is the first time that the Government employees non-gazetted employees, approached the Government for another occasion; this is simply for special sanction during the time of admission of their children into the schools. They have not demanded any grant; Let me inform the hon. Members why loan advanced have been given because thee was no demand for grant. They came in a body to me and they demanded not grant for this special session; they have understood the principle, the practice, the convention involved in these special occasional advances. So they represented and we appreciated their difficulty that they have to spend a lot for their children's admission into schools during February/March when the school session commences as well as for books, uniforms and so many things. We have acceded their request appreciated their difficulties, and Government have decided to make this issue of school admission as a special occasion for advance, just like pujas and Christmas. Therefore when it is mentioned as children's education, it does not mean general education for the whole year term. It means for a peak period during admission. This is really the actual purpose of this amount for which the approval of this House being sought for. Therefore, this has got nothing to do with the allowances and salaries of employees. The main point is that whether you agree to treat this period, February/March, as special period for this advance. This is the peak period of spending more for their children and the Government have realised the difficulties of the parents. All other points and suggestions will be considered separately in different ways at different times. I believe the hon. member and Members do appreciate that it is very, very proper, very great relief to the parents at the peak period of incurring expenditure for their children to get admission into schools, to get new books, new uniforms, etc. Therefore, with these explanations, I hope the hon. mover will withdraw the cut motion.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, we are quite aware of the consideration which necessitates the grant of loan and of the great difficulties that the parents have to face to admit their children in the beginning of a year to some schools or the other. And in fact we are very grateful to the Government for having allowed such grant of loans or advances to enable them at that particular time to meet the expenses. We only want to insist on the need for permanent arrangement not peace-meal arrangements or advances, whereby the general welfare and well-being of these children of poor Government employees can be looked after. 

Mr. Speaker :- Any way, Prof. Majaw, I think Government servants nowhere are being given grants by the Governments.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, family allowances are being given in other States.

Mr. Speaker :- That is a new thing, you have made a new suggestion to the Government. But it is wrong also, as the hon. Member from Nongstoin suggested, to convert loans into grants. The hon. Member from Nongstoin wants all the loans to be converted into grants. In that case how this Government will run the administration.

Shri. Francis K. Mawlot :- I do not say all the loans but there are cases.

Mr. Speaker :- If there are genuine cases they will be considered.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- There is another point for clarification. For example ever since the setting up of the Pay Commission by Assam i.e., since 1971, it was implemented only in 1975-76. In the mean time price level has gone up.

Mr. Speaker :- That is why I did not allow the Finance Minister to deal with that point.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- After 5 years there has been a rise in price. So if the Government is sympathetic with the proposal that we have forwarded, think some sort of family loans can be given to the low-paid Government employees.

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- From that point of view we have already the General Provident Fund, Insurance schemes and so many other things for the security of the employees.

Mr. Speaker :- You have thrown the idea; Government will consider it is only a question as to whether the hon. Members now agree with the principle that the Government should give advance to those non-gazetted employees at the time of admission into schools and colleges.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- In view of the sympathetic assurance ...

Shri. W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- There is no assurance.

Mr. Speaker :- I have put the question before them whether they agree with the principle that the Government should pay advance to the non-gazetted employees.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- In view of the proposal from the Chair and the consideration that will be given by the Government, I beg leave to withdraw my cut motion.

Mr. Speaker :- Has the hon. Member leave of the House to withdraw his cut motion; (voices - yes, yes). The Cut Motion is with leave of the House withdrawn.


THE MEGHALAYA APPROPRIATION (No.IV) BILL, 1976.

Mr. Speaker :- Let me put the question before the House. The question is that an additional amount of Rs.10,00,000 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come to the course payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1977 for the administration of the head-"766-Loans to Government Servants". (The motion was carried by voice and the demand was passed) 

        Let us pass on to item No.4

        The Meghalaya Appropriation (No. IV) Bill, 1976.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister Finance) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to introduce the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. IV) Bill, 1976.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. The question is that leave be granted to introduce the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. IV) Bill, 1976. (The motion was carried by voice vote).

        Before I ask the Minister to introduce the Bill, let me read the message from the Governor -

"RAJ BHAVAN

Shillong

The 4th September, 1976.

        In exercise of power conferred by Clause (1) of Article 207 of the Constitution of India, I, Lallan Prasad Singh, Governor of Meghalaya hereby recommend to the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly the introduction of the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. IV) Bill, 1976.

LALLAN PRASAD SINGH,

Governor"

        (At this stage copies of the Bill were circulated among the hon. Members).

        Will the Minister introduce the Bill ?

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister Finance) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. IV) Bill, 1976.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. The question is that the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. IV) Bill, 1976, be introduce. (The motion was carried).

        (The Secretary read out the title of the Bill).

        Let me read another message from the Governor.

"RAJ BHAVAN

Shillong

The 4th September, 1976.

        In exercise of power conferred by Clause (1) of Article 207 of the Constitution of India, I, Lallan Prasad Singh, Governor of Meghalaya hereby recommend to the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly the introduction of the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. IV) Bill, 1976.

Sd/- LALLAN PRASAD SINGH,

Governor"

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister Finance) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. IV) Bill, 1976 be taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. The question is that the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. IV) Bill, 1976 be taken into consideration. (The motion was carried)

        Now the bill be taken into consideration clause by clause but since there is no amendment to the Bill, the Minister may move that the Bill be passed.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister Finance) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. IV) Bill, 1976 be passed.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. I put the question that the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. IV) Bill, 1976, be passed.

(The motion was carried and the Bill was passed)


ADJOURNMENT

        The House stands adjourned till 9.30 A.M. tomorrow; the 14th September, 1976.

D.S. KHONGDUP,

Dated Shillong,

Secretary,

The 13th September, 1976

Meghalaya Legislative Assembly,