The Wire: National: Friday, August 18, 2017.
The two are
often equated and while there are similarities, like both relate to the timely
delivery of public services by the government and both have digitised
databases, there are some critical fundamental differences.
At present,
there is some confusion over the differences between the right to public
service delivery and the right to grievance redress. Over 20 states of varying
political dispositions have passed service delivery laws. Only Bihar has passed
a grievance redress law. At the national level, there is no law governing the
delivery of services or the redressal of grievances.
The Right of
Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of
Grievances Bill, advocated by the National Campaign for Peoples Right to
Information, sought to address this legislative gap. This Bill was introduced
in the Lok Sabha in 2011 and subsequently lapsed. According tonews reports, the
present government plans to introduce a Delivery of Services and Grievances
Redressal Scheme – 2015 and not a legal entitlement to redress.
This
legislation is often equated with the public service delivery laws in states.
On the surface, there are similarities between the two, which gives rise to the
confusion. Both relate to the timely delivery of public services by government
agencies, both have digitised databases, appellate mechanisms and penalties on
erring officials. However, there are critical differences in the fundamental
architecture.
Bihar is the
only state to have both laws, a Bihar Right to Public Services Act, 2011 and
Bihar Right to Public Grievance Redressal Act, 2015. Understanding the
distinction is crucial to understanding and advocating for greater
accountability of government in the delivery of public services.
Timely
service versus timely redressal of a complaint
The right to
a service, under the Public Services Act, is defined as the designated public
servant providing a notified service within a time limit. So for example, the
law notifies that pension applications are to be processed by the block
development officer (BDO) within 21 days. This means that when I file an
application for an old age pension, I have statutory backing that the
application has to be processed within three weeks. However, if I don’t get it
on time, have to pay a bribe, or I feel the pension is too low, these issues
are not covered there.
The right to
public grievance redressal, on the other hand, means the right to file a
complaint, for it to be heard, to be redressed and to get information about the
decision of redressal within a time frame. So if the postmaster siphoned off my
pension money, then I can file a complaint under the Public Grievance Redressal
Act and expect redress within the time frame of 60 days.
Restricted
versus universal
As a citizen
I have a legal right under the Public Service Act only if I am eligible for a
particular service. But any citizen can use a Grievance Redress Act. Given that
the bulk of issues on welfare benefits relate to wrongful exclusion, this is an
important distinction to note. For example, if I have lost my below poverty
line card and cannot demonstrate eligibility for an old age pension, I have no
legal recourse under the Public Services Act. However, I can use the Public
Grievance Redress Act to file a complaint on my lost card, and ask for my
pension application to be considered.
Department
coverage versus all public authorities
Under the
Public Service Act, only certain departments notify certain services to be
covered under the law. So for example, the police department is not notified
and none of the services provided are covered under this law. Within the social
welfare department, under old age pensions, only the application and
verification will be covered and nothing else. At present 20 services, and 49
sub-services are notified. Under the Grievance Redress Act, however, entire
departments and schemes are notified, and all functions performed by the
department related to that service are covered. At present 44 departments and
438 schemes are notified.
Implementing
agencies versus public grievance redress officers
The Public
Service Act covers officials who are in any case tasked with implementing the
programme or delivering the concerned service to the public. The Grievance
Redress Act on the other hand, creates the position of a Public Grievance
Redress Officer (PGRO), who is independent from the implementing departments.
So for example, if the BDO is sitting on my pension application and not processing
it, as per the Public Service Act, I can then approach the appellate authority
within the department, who will be the supervisor of the BDO. This is likely to
not lead me anywhere. Under the Grievance Redress Act, I can now approach
someone outside the department, who is senior to the BDO and who has the powers
to summon them and hear out my complaint, thus increasing the chance of
redress.
Onus on
citizen versus facilitation by the state
Under the
Right to Public Service, the citizen has to do all the leg work and running
around, of putting together their papers and documentation, to be filed with
the department. The Grievance Redress Act however, introduces the much-needed
concept of facilitation. Information and facilitation centres have been set up
at the sub-district level, which are staffed to help people fill out their
complaint forms and submit them to the PGRO. At the time of filing a complaint,
the citizen only needs to state the grievance, and not provide any further
documentation of proof, neither does she have to specify which department and
which officer is responsible for this. This is a hugely progressive move, as
citizens cannot be expected to be knowledgeable about department processes and
role-responsibilities.
Unlike any
such provision in the Public Service Act, the Grievance Redress Act provides
for the right to a hearing. The PGRO, summons the concerned person in the
government department, as well as the citizen and hears the complaint out face
to face. This has been shown to be very effective in bringing about greater
accountability and speed of resolution.
Lessons
from Bihar
As the only
state with service delivery and grievance redress laws, Bihar has introduced
some mechanisms through a legal framework that are genuinely citizen friendly.
If made to work, these could offer citizens some reprieve from a broken and
unaccountable system of service delivery.
However,
there are several areas where the law can be improved. The national
legislation, which was approved by a parliamentary standing committee has many
more progressive measures. These include setting up the facilitation centres at
the block level so that more people can use it. Coming to the sub-district
level has obvious opportunity costs for citizens. Secondly, instead of each
department notifying services, there should be clearly defined job charts and
citizen charters of each public department for each public function. Violations
to those should be considered as a complaint or grievance. Thirdly, it is
essential that the appellate structures are independent to the department.
While this law creates an independent PGRO, there is also the need for
independent appellate mechanisms and an independent state level commission. The
state information commissions, under the right to information (RTI) law are an
example for this architecture that is working fairly well for citizens. Lastly,
apart from penalties, there is a need to also compensate citizens who have
followed the due process to get their service, but have been denied and shunted
about the place.
Both laws in
Bihar have put in place digitised systems to file and track applications and
complaints. In both, the citizen receives some kind of tracking ID, by which
they can log in and see the progress of their application or complaint.
However, the overall information system on the performance of these laws is
missing form the public domain. Given that the laws relate to public services
and are widely used by citizens, it is also essential that citizens have a
stake in the overall policy design and monitoring of such a system. To do this,
the first step would be put out publicly the management information systems of
the functioning of these laws. This would include all the information that is
being collected and tracked by the state, such as adherence to timelines,
pendencies at various department and official levels, penalties charged and so
on.
The lessons
from RTI are at our disposal. The department of personnel and training and
state information commissions have ordered that all RTI requests and replies
should be in the public domain, as it relates to a public matter that should
any way have been proactively disclosed by the public authority. The presence
of information on the working of the public service and public grievance
redress laws, in the public domain, will increase peoples understanding of
their provisions, and built their ability to use and monitor it.
To conclude,
there are fundamental differences between public service delivery laws and a
comprehensive grievance redress architecture. While the former attempts to
streamline existing processes within a department, a grievance redress law goes
into the very DNA of our public administration. Envisioned and executed
properly, it could bring about greater accountability in our systems, which are
severely citizen unfriendly. Building on the lessons of the RTI, which brought
in a culture of transparency in the government, a grievance redress law seeks
to do much more than just public service delivery, but bring in greater
accountability overall.
(Inayat
Anaita Sabhikhi is a fellow of Tata Institute of Social Sciences, and works in
Bihar and Jharkhand on social welfare entitlements.)
.JPG)
.JPG)
