PRADHAN MANTRI

GRAM SADAK YOJANA

PROGRAMME GUIDELINES
(PMGSY-II)

AUGUST, 2013

1
CONTENTS
Page No.
Part I - PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
1. Introduction 1
2. Objectives of PMGSY-II 2

Part II – PLANNING, FUNDING, CONSTRUCTION AND

MAINTENANCE OF RURAL ROADS
3. Planning for Rural Roads 3
4. Funding and Allocation 8
5. Proposals 9
6. State Level Agencies 13
7. Preparation of Project Proposals and their Clearance 16
8. Programmatic Requirements 21
9. Scrutiny of Annual Proposals 23
10. Empowered Committee 25
11. Tendering of Works 25
12. Programme Implementation Units 26
13. Execution of Works 29
14. National Rural Roads Development Agency 31
15. Quality Control and Supervision of Works 32
16. Monitoring 38
17. Maintenance of Rural Roads 39
18. Rural Roads Safety 41

Part III - FLOW OF FUNDS, PROCEDURE FOR RELEASE AND

AUDIT
19. Flow of Funds 42

20. Audit 45
21. Miscellaneous 48
22. Convergence 49

2
Part I - PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

I. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rural Road Connectivity, and its sustained availability, is a key

component of Rural Development as it assures continuing access to
economic and social services and thereby generates sustained increase in
agricultural incomes and productive employment opportunities. It is also as
a result, a vital ingredient in ensuring sustainable poverty reduction which
demands a permanent rural connectivity, encompassing a high level of
quality of construction followed by continuous post-construction maintenance
of the road asset and in fact of the entire network.

1.2 With the objective of providing rural connectivity, Government of

India had launched the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (referred as
PMGSY-I hereinafter) on 25th December, 2000 to provide all-weather access
to eligible unconnected habitations as a strategy for poverty alleviation.
However, as the programme unfolded, a dire need to consolidate the entire
rural roads network by upgradation of selected Through Routes and some
Major Rural Links (MRLs) was felt and accordingly a new intervention has
been evolved, namely PMGSY-II.

2. Objectives of PMGSY-II.

2.1 Need for consolidation of Rural Roads Network:

Under PMGSY-I, out of the targets fixed under new connectivity as well as
upgradation over 70% of the projects have been sanctioned and a large
proportion have been completed. However the roads, both taken under the
PMGSY - I as well as other schemes for rural roads, have not received the
desired attention on the maintenance front for a number of reasons,
including low contracting capacity, poor maintenance practices, inadequate
feeling of ownership of the newly created roads at State level etc. This has
led to erosion of assets created under various programmes and the
sustainability of assets created has not been ensured.

3
The need for maintenance and consolidation of existing rural roads network
has been stressed at various fora, such as XII Finance Commission, XIII
Finance Commission and the Working Group on Rural Roads for 12th Five
Year Plan. In this backdrop, the need for consolidation of the existing
network was felt, to ensure that it fulfills the primary objective of connectivity
for the local community and enables economical transportation of goods and
for services to provide better livelihood opportunities as a part of poverty
reduction strategy. This is now proposed through a programme called
PMGSY-II.

2.2 Objectives of PMGSY – II:

PMGSY–II envisages consolidation of the existing Rural Road Network to

improve its overall efficiency as a provider of transportation services for
people, goods and services. It aims to cover upgradation of existing selected
rural roads based on their economic potential and their role in facilitating the
growth of rural market centres and rural hubs . Development of growth
centres and rural hubs are critical to the overall strategy of facilitating
poverty alleviation through creation of rural infrastructure. Growth
centres/rural hubs would provide markets, banking and other service
facilities enabling creation of self-employment and livelihood opportunities on
an ongoing basis.

A ’Growth Centre’ can be defined as an area of relatively centralized

population, providing rural socio-economic services not only for the area but
in a ‘catchment’ area with a radius of several kilometers. It would generally
be a T-junction of a rural road with a Through Route or a meeting point of
two rural roads. A ‘Rural Hub’ is a large Growth Centre, characterized by
the fact that it is connected to more than one Through Route (e.g. a T-
junction or a crossing) thus giving it a higher potential. These Growth
Centres and Rural Hubs help to ensure easy access to raw materials, labour
inputs etc. for off-farm activities and bring the benefits of economic growth to
the rural hinterland, including white goods, and passenger transport
vehicles, as well as electivity, telecom, internet and other communication
infrastructure etc.

The selection of routes would be with the objective of identification of rural

Growth Centers and other critical Rural Hubs and other rural places of

4
importance (growth poles, rural markets, tourist places, education and health
centres etc.)

The initiative of PMGSY-II will also act as a catalyst for livelihood

based programmes, including ‘Aajeevika’ launched during the 12th Five year
Plan period, by recognizing growth centres/rural hubs as catalysts and
facilitating their connectivity to the hinterland. The process of identifying
such roads is detailed in subsequent paras.

Part II – PLANNING, FUNDING, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE

OF RURAL ROADS

3. PLANNING FOR RURAL ROADS

3.1 Proper planning is imperative to achieve the objectives of the

Programme in a systematic and cost effective manner. The Manual for the
Preparation of Block/District Rural Roads Plan (DRRP) shall be treated as
part of the Guidelines and would be amended to the extent required by the
present Guidelines. The Manual already sets out the various steps in the
planning process and lays down the role of different Agencies including the
Intermediate Panchayat, the District Panchayat as well as the State Level
Standing Committee. The DRRPs would constitute the basis for all
planning exercises under PMGSY–II.

3.2 The District Rural Roads Plan would include the entire existing
road network system in the District a n d w o u l d b e u p d a t e d t o i n c l u d e
r o a d s b u i l t u n d e r P M G S Y , R I D F e t c . Whereas the concept of
Through Routes and Link Routes was basically included in Core Network in
PMGSY I, under PMGSY II, the revision of DRRP would encompass
identification of the Through Routes (TRs), Major Rural Links (MRLs) and
Link Routes (LRs). Notably, PMGSY-II would be based upon the DRRP,
which being a broader concept than the Core Network, is more
comprehensive. The Census 2011 will be used for purposes of population
data of the habitations in the DRRP including the Growth Centres, to help
determine the candidate DRRP Roads for purposes of upgradation.

3.3 To facilitate identification and selection of Growth Centres and Rural

Hubs, the mechanism of ranking would be based upon socio-economic/
infrastructure variables and weightages thereof as stipulated in Annexure- 1
to these Guidelines. It would be necessary that selection of candidate roads
is objectively based on the sum total of the marks of growth centres which
5
fall on that road.
A State which has Special Areas (being a Special Category State, or
areas like as identified under DDP, or falling in Schedule V Tribal areas, or
IAP Districts; can have two matrices one as above and one for the special
areas. The second matrix can have different uniform weights for sub-
categories, without changing total weight of any category, and in it the
population unit score can be uniformly linked to a lower number as arrived at
in consultation with NRRDA.
For such mining centres/ Industrial hubs that sign an MoU with
SRRDA for maintenance, upto a score not exceeding 5 can be given within
the matrix.
NRRDA may stipulate a methodology to calculate an upper limit on
the number of such candidate roads for each block/district to ensure broader
coverage. Each district would thus prepare a Comprehensive Upgradation
cum Consolidation Priority Lists (CUCPL) based on the road score, factoring
in the road condition and maintenance in the manner given in subsequent
paragraphs.

3.3 (i) Under PMGSY – II, District Rural Roads Plan is the basis for selection
of roads. The existing DRRP prepared for PMGSY–I would need to be
revised and updated incorporating new construction and improvements of
the surface type and condition of the roads that have taken place since the
preparation of the plan.
.
3.3 (ii) The revised and updated DRRP, duly taking into consideration the
Census data of 2011, with due identification of Through Routes (TRs), Major
Link Routes (MRLs) and Link Routes (LRs); would first be brought on to a
GIS platform. Notably, uniform meta-data standards and colour coding
systems and legends would be adopted for the rural road network applicable
to all States/UTs. While developing DRRP on GIS platform, as an add-on
layer to the GIS, an inventory of local and marginal materials for road works
would also be created to encourage use of such materials to facilitate cost-
effective construction.

3.4 The D R R P would first be prepared at the Block level, in

accordance with the directions contained in the Manual. In short, the

6
existing road network would be drawn up, Growth Centres and Rural Hubs
identified and the identified candidate road alignments marked on the map.
This shall constitute the Block Level Master Plan.

3.5 The DRRP (including all Block level Rural Roads Plan i.e. BRRPs)
would be placed before the Intermediate Panchayat for consideration and
approval. It would be simultaneously sent, (along with the list of higher
ranking growth centres, and all candidate Through routes/ Major
Rural Links) to the Members of Parliament (MPs) and MLAs, for their
comments, if any. After approval by the Intermediate Panchayat, the Plans
would be placed before the District Panchayat for its approval. It will be
incumbent on the District Panchayat to ensure that the suggestions given
by the Members of Parliament /Members of Legislative Assembly are given
full consideration within the framework of these Guidelines. Once approved
by the District Panchayat, a copy of the DRRP would be sent to the State
Level Standing Committee (SLSC) and after its approval to the State-
level Rural Roads Development Agency (SRRDA) as well as the National
Rural Roads Development Agency (NRRDA). No road work shall be included in
the CUCPL unless it forms part of the approved DRRP.

3.6 Procedure for selection of Roads under PMGSY – II

The selected roads under PMGSY–II are expected to be mainly Through

Routes. Though in the DRRP of PMGSY-I, there is no strict definition of
Through routes and Link routes, the DRRP prepared under PMGSY-II will
need to make this categorization. Roads catering to large populations by
connecting populations over a large area and which act as collectors of
traffic from smaller roads, would be treated as Through routes for the
purpose of PMGSY – II. Such roads would provide access to growth
centers and pass through or terminate in a Rural Hub. The selection of any
road under PMGSY-II is to be based on parameters such as:

a. Growth Centre’s Rank (among rural growth centres)

b. Condition of the road in terms of Pavement Condition
Index (PCI) survey subject to requisite maintenance
funds invested during last 3 years on the road.

Since traffic flow is to and fro between a lower ranked growth centre and a
higher ranked growth centre, the roads selected for upgradation will trace
the path connecting the rural growth centers and terminating in a Rural Hub,
7
in a way likely to represent actual movements of labour, goods and
services.

It is notable that a settlement may graduate to a Growth Point, Growth

Centre or Growth Pole or Rural Hub depending upon the extent of
amenities available and their weightages as identified in the ranking Matrix.
When the growth score is low, it would qualify as a Growth Point (e.g. a
‘road head’ Settlement where one or more tracks from the hinterland join a
road) and as the score increases to a higher level the settlement becomes a
Growth Center and further a Growth Pole and finally a Rural Hub. Unless
otherwise specified, a Growth Centre will include a ‘Growth Pole’ as well as
a ‘Growth Point’.

The Growth Centres or Rural Hubs with increasing scores are notably only
points. As such their scores are point wise scores. However, since a road is
a line to be traced joining such growth centers, it is imperative to arrive at a
line score. The line score would be computed as the cumulative score of the
Growth Centres directly connected by the candidate road. The candidate
roads are to be selected by tracing the road joining growth points and
growth centers leading to higher order growth centers or higher order roads
leading to such growth centers.
A road can be proposed to pass through an urban point or a point on
NH/SH/MDR, but scores of point/s so located should not be added, though
the entire length of such candidate road would be used while determining
Unit Value per unit length.
For more than one line passing through a point, Growth scores of the point
can be added to compute score of each such line.

These candidate roads carrying different line scores need to be normalized

for selection of roads to be upgraded subject to PCI and maintenance
investment. For this purpose, Utility Value (UV) of unit road length needs be
computed by arriving at the cumulative score of the rural Growth Centres
the road divided by its proposed length for upgradation. Thus the utility
value is the growth score per unit length. When two candidate roads are
found to have the same Utility Value, the population served by the road
directly and indirectly by other connected link roads is to be computed and
treating population as a proxy to the traffic, whichever road is found to be
serving more people would get the preference.

The candidate roads would be arranged in descending order based on the

8
utility value per unit length to arrive at the priority list for the domain
considered, be it a block or a district. In order to ensure better coverage, it
is suggested that a block be considered as a domain and candidate road be
traced block wise. The State Government would need to declare its policy in
this respect while entering the programme. It would be necessary to also
keep track of inter block or inter district roads having potential and such
roads would also become candidate roads. It is likely that both segments
will have high utility value and it is preferable if the entire length is included
in one go.

It is essential that if a Through route is being upgraded, the higher category

road that it leads on to, say a Major District Road (MDR), should have
specifications and geometrics not lower than that in the upgradation design.
The State Government would therefore need to include a project
component funded out of its own budget for the purpose, if necessary, as
an adjunct to the programme.

If a Through route is to be upgraded to a 5.5 meter carriageway on traffic

consideration, it will be subject to an evaluation as to whether it ought to be
declared an MDR. In all such cases, it should be agreed by the State
beforehand that it would be categorized as an MDR immediately after its
upgradation. The work can either be executed by the agency responsible
for MDRs from State funds or be handed over after the project period to the
State agency responsible for MDRs for future maintenance, renewal etc. A
formal understanding to this effect should be agreed upon beforehand.

For achieving full synergy, before the commencement of PMGSY-II, an

independent standard traffic study would be done up to the MDR of the
DRRP, and the State would have to ensure that the MDRs are of a
specification which conform to the existing traffic requirements, by taking it
as a separately funded project, where necessary.

4. FUNDING AND ALLOCATION

4.1 Eligibility and Funding for PMGSY-II

All States and Union Territories would be eligible to participate under

PMGSY-II. However, in order to ensure that contracting capacity is not
drawn away from PMGSY-I works, a State/UT can join only after 100% of
9
the new connectivity and 75 % of upgradation works (and 90% of length
cleared) under PMGSY-I are awarded. States must also commit to
crediting requisite installments of the State share before release of
corresponding installments of the central share is continued. Maintenance
and Renewal of PMGSY-I roads as per PMGSY guidelines is also a
prerequisite. The programme will focus on upgradation of Through routes
and Major Rural Links (MRLs) within the State specific target.

Before taking the PMGSY-II projects it will need to be certified that all MDRs
and Through routes and atleast 50% of Link routes under DRRP, are under
area based “Batch Maintenance” and a commitment by the State to provide
the requisite funds would be an essential requirement to participate in the
programme. The policy on whether the prioritization will be District-wise or
Block-wise will need to be communicated (see para 3.6).

Under PMGSY-II, the target length proposed for upgradation would be

taken as 25% of the PMGSY-I upgradation per se target for each State and
UT in the country.

The allocation of fund for PMGSY-II would be within 15-20% of the annual
PMGSY budget of Ministry of Rural Development during the Twelfth plan,
so as to adequately focus on PMGSY-I projects as well.

Though PMGSY-I is 100% centrally funded programme, PMGSY-II is on

cost sharing basis between Centre and States/ UTs. The proportion of
sharing of the construction cost would be as follows.

Normal Areas - 75% Centre and 25% State/ UT

Special Category States (11),
DDP Areas, Schedule- V areas,
BRGF districts and IAP districts - 90% Centre and 10% State/ UT
Maintenance and renewal - Costs will be fully borne by the
States/UTs

10
5. PROPOSALS

5.1 In order to manage the rural road network for upgradation and
maintenance planning, all States will (inhouse or outsourced through a
procedure approved by NRRDA) carry out on a continuing basis with a 2-
year cycle, a Pavement Condition Survey of the District Rural Road
Networks (DRRP). Detailed Guidelines on the methodology and analysis
will be issued by the Ministry from time to time. The Survey will yield a
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) on a scale of 1 to 5 (poor to good). Each PIU
shall enter the PCI data in the OMMAS database which will enable generation of
processed information, including a list of roads and their PCI values.

All up-gradation and maintenance prioritization will be done from this list.

11
 5.2 The C o m p r e h e n s i v e Upgradation cum Consolidation Priority Lists
(CUCPL) will be prepared District-wise o r B l o c k - w i s e a s t h e c a s e m a y
b e (where only a truncated portion of the road is to be taken under
upgradation, only that portion needs to be mentioned, by chainage) on the
following proforma:-

District:

Average Total
Year Average per km population of the
Road Name Present mainten Habitations
Year of of last PCI and
Blo code of surface Utility ance served by road
constr period
ck in through type Value year of PCI exp. In directly and
DRRP route / uction ic last 3 indirectly
renew years
MRL
al

The roads will be ranked by utility value District-wise or Block-wise as the case
may be. Annual proposals will be made from this list in order of ranking, subject
to qualifying the PCI and maintenance criteria. The List shall be revised on 31st
March each year based on latest PCI and maintenance expenditure.

The CUCPL will be got verified on the ground on sample basis through the
STAs and the NQM system before it is processed for further approvals. The STAs
will do 100% verification of the List for consistency check on the basis of the PCI
data furnished by the District and also sample ground checking.

5.3 After the initial CUCPL is prepared and verified, it shall be placed before
the District Panchayat. The Members of Parliament / MLAs shall be given a copy of
the CUCPL and their suggestions and suggestions of lower level Panchayati
Institutions shall be given the fullest consideration by the District Panchayat while
according its approval. The approved CUCPL shall be the basis of all upgradation
proposals. Such proposals that cannot be included would be communicated in
writing to Members of Parliament /Members of Legislative Assembly with reasons
for non-inclusion in each case.

5.4 The list of road works to be taken up under the PMGSY-II will be
12
finalised each year by the District Panchayat from the updated CUCPL in
accordance with the allocation of f unds meant for PMGSY-II communicated to
the District. The District Panchayat shall finalise the list through a consultative
process involving lower level Panchayati institutions and elected representatives.
It must be ensured that the proposed road works are part of the updated
DRRP.

5.5 The Annual proposals will be based on the CUCPL following the Order of
Priority (subject to PCI and maintenance). However, it is possible that there are
inadvertent errors or omissions, particularly in the selection of Through routes.
Accordingly it is desirable to also associate public representatives while
finalizing the selection of road works in the annual proposals. The proposals of
the Members of Parliament are required to be given full consideration, for this
purpose:

(i) The CUCPL should be sent to each MP with the request that their
proposals on the selection of works out of the CUCPL should be
sent to the District Panchayat. It is suggested that at least 15 clear
days may be given for the purpose.

(ii) In order to ensure that the prioritisation has some reference to the
funding available, the size of proposals expected may also be
indicated to the Members of Parliament while forwarding them the
CUCPL list. District wise allocation may be indicated to enable
choice with the requisite geographical spread. It is expected that
such proposals of Members of Parliament which adhere to the
Order of Priority would be invariably accepted subject to
consideration of equitable allocation of funds, availability of balance
target and need for upgradation .

(iii) The proposals received from the Members of Parliament by the

stipulated date would be given full consideration in the District
Panchayat which would record the reason in each case of non-
inclusion. Such proposals that cannot be included would be
communicated in writing to the Members of Parliament
/Members of Legislative Assembly would be communicated in
writing with reasons for non-inclusion of such proposals in
each case. It would be preferable if the communication is issued
13
 from the Nodal Department at a senior level.

5.6 While Lok Sabha Members would be consulted in respect of their

constituencies, Rajya Sabha Members will be consulted in respect of that District
of the State they represent for which they have been nominated as Co-Chairman
of the District Vigilance & Monitoring Committee of the Ministry of Rural
Development.

5.7 It will be the responsibility of the State Government / District Panchayat to

ensure that lands including proposed width are available for taking up the proposed
upgradation road works. A certificate that Land is available must accompany the
proposal for each road work. It must be noted that the PMGSY-II does not provide
any funds for Land Acquisition. However, this does not mean that acquisition
cannot be done by the State Government at its own cost. The State Government
may also lay down guidelines for voluntary donation, exchange or other
mechanisms to ensure availability of land. The process of making land
available for the road works should sub-serve the common good and also be just
and equitable. The details of land made available should be reflected in the local
land records to avoid disputes, after approval of road work and before or during
execution.

5.8 Under PMGSY-II the following categories of upgradation cum consolidation

proposals would be eligible.

Category-A Eligible Through Routes/Link Routes under PMGSY-I but not yet
sanctioned. Such roads will be upgraded to existing carriageway
width or higher carriageway width up to 5.5 meters depending upon
traffic volume and growth potential;

Category-B Freshly identified Through Routes/ Link Routes in revised District

Rural Roads Plan (DRRPs) to be upgraded to existing carriageway
width or higher carriageway width up to 5.5 meters depending upon
traffic volume and growth centre potential.
Category-C Roads constructed/ upgraded under PMGSY-I, experiencing
comparatively higher volumes of traffic justifying upgradation with
existing carriageway width or higher carriageway width up to 5.5
meters.

Roads already constructed under PMGSY–I will become eligible for PMGSY-II
on completion of design life and on the basis of capacity requirement to

14
accommodate traffic if it has gone beyond the projected traffic and such traffic
cannot be accommodated in the existing carriageway width, with the required
level of service. The deteriorated condition of the road due to non -
maintenance or non-undertaking of renewal works at the required time cannot
become a criteria for taking the roads of PMGSY-I in PMGSY-II.

It is to be noted that upgradation of selected rural roads include upgradation of

bridges on the identified roads. In case of bridges separate DPRs will be
prepared by agencies approved by NRRDA. These works will be tendered
separately. The cost sharing for bridges are the same as for the road.

6. STATE LEVEL AGENCIES

6.1 Each State Government (including UT Administration) would identify one

or two suitable Agencies (having a presence in all the Districts and with
established competence in executing time-bound road construction works), to
be designated as Executing Agencies (the same as identified for PMGSY-I).
These could be the Public Works Department / Rural Engineering Service /
Organisation / Rural Works Department / Zilla Parishad / Panchayati Raj
Engineering Department etc. who have been in existence for a large number of
years and have the necessary experience, expertise and manpower. In States
where more than one Executing Agency has been identified by the State
Government for PMGSY-I, the State Government will have to designate one of
them as the Principal Agency for the purpose of PMGSY-II. The Executing
Agency will have a Programme Implementation Unit (PIU) in the District, or a
compact group of Districts, with an officer of the rank of at least Executive
Engineer as its head. The Administrative Department of the State Government
responsible for the Principal Executing Agency entrusted with the execution of
the road works will be the Nodal Department.

6.2 The Nodal Department will designate the State-level autonomous

Agency (SRRDA - the same as established for PMGSY-I), under its control for
receiving the funds from the Ministry of Rural Development, as indicated in
Para 18 below. The Secretary in charge of the Nodal Department or a senior
officer will be the Chief Executive. All the proposals will be vetted by the
Agency (SRRDA) before they are placed before the State Level Standing

15
Committee (SLSC) and are sent to NRRDA for obtaining clearance of the
Ministry of Rural Development.

6.3 To ensure streamlined functioning and adequate coordination, officers of

the PIU need to be made fully accountable to the SRRDA and must be brought
under its administrative control. The SRRDA would function as the dedicated
agency of the State Nodal Department for rural roads, to ensure the integrated
development of rural roads through the various schemes including PMGSY.
The Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Engineer/ Engineer-in-Chief,
Financial Controller (FC), Empowered Officer, IT Nodal Officer (ITNO) and
State Quality Coordinator (SQC) designated under PMGSY-I would continue to
function under PMGSY-II. In addition there will be a separate officer of at least
Superintendent Engineer level, responsible for Maintenance Management and
Road Safety. The broad structure of the ‘SRRDA would be as follows:-

CEO SRRDA

E-in-C/CE Addl. CEO (Full

time in case CEO
is not full time

F.C. SQC ITNO MM&RS

6.4 The State Level Standing Committee (SLSC) set up for PMGSY-I would
also continue to function for PMGSY-II. The SLSC would be headed by the
Chief Secretary or Additional Chief Secretary with members of various
stakeholders of the programme namely Secretaries of the Departments of
Rural Development, Panchayats, PWD, Forests, Social Welfare, Finance,
Revenue, Health, Education and Transport . The State Technical Agencies and
State Informatics Officer (SIC) would be special invitees.

The Committee shall vet the DRRP list of identified Growth Centres and Rural
Hubs, CUCPL and shall clear the annual project proposals. The Committee
shall also

16
 a. monitor progress and quality

b. resolve issues relating to land availability and forest / environment

clearance

c. oversee maintenance funding arrangements for the entire DRRP

d. review capacity at SRRDA and PIU levels including financial

management and on-line management and monitoring; and

e. ensure convergence of development programmes including

construction planning and transport facilities on the constructed
roads and afforestation (greening alongside the roads).

The Executing Agency and Programme Implementation Units (PIUs) will be

strengthened as per requirements. A typical PIU shall be headed by an Executive
Engineer level officer supported by the hierarchy of lower level engineers, such as
Assistant Engineers (at least 3), and Junior Engineers/Supervisors (at least 9). In
view of the fact that maintenance of roads and road safety is very important for the
programme, a dedicated Assistant Engineer level officer should be a part of each
PIU for taking care of planning and implementation of maintenance management
and road safety .

The PIU engineers implementing PMGSY-II should be well versed with the quality
assurance mechanism. The engineers will be trained by the SRRDA at reputed
training centers, drawing faculty from both academia as well as from the practicing
engineers, as an essential part of the programme and NRRDA will also organize
training on key aspects.

6.5 NRRDA has identified in consultation with each State Government,

reputed Technical Institutions, designated as State Technical Agencies (STAs)
to provide outsourced technical support to the PIUs. The STAs would vet the
District Rural Roads Plan, check the CUCPL and scrutinise the DPRs
prepared under the Annual proposals. The coordination of activities of the STAs
would be performed by the NRRDA, who may add to or delete institutions
from the list, as well as to entrust specific tasks to them. NRRDA may from time
to time identify additional technically qualified agencies to provide these

17
services to the State Governments and to perform such other functions as may
be necessary in the interest of the Scheme.

6.6 NRRDA has also identified reputed Technical and Research Institutions
such as the Indian Institutes of Technology as Principal Technical Agency (PTA)
for various groups of States. The PTAs will provide technical support, take up
research projects, study and evaluate different technologies and advise on
measures to improve the quality and cost norms of Rural Roads. The Principal
Technical Agencies shall also coordinate the work of the STAs in their jurisdiction, and
coordinate, training and capacity building activities with the assistance of the STAs.

7. PREPARATION OF PROJECT PROPOSALS AND THEIR CLEARANCE

7.1 After approval by the District Panchayat (refer Para 5.4 above), the
proposals would be forwarded by the PIU to the SRRDA (refer Para 6.3 above).
The PIU will at that time prepare the details of proposals forwarded by the
Members of Parliament, and action taken thereon, in Proforma MP-I and MP–
II and send it along with the proposals. In all cases where the proposal of an
MP has not been included, cogent reasons shall be given based on the reasons
given by the District Panchayat.

7.2 The SRRDA shall vet the proposals to ensure that they are in
accordance with the Guidelines and shall place them before the State-level
Standing Committee along with the MP-I & MP-II Statements.

7.3 The State Level Standing Committee (SLSC) would scrutinize the
proposals to see that they are in accordance with the Guidelines and that the
proposals of the Members of Parliament have been given full consideration.
After scrutiny by the State Level Standing Committee, the Programme
Implementation Units (PIUs) will prepare the Detailed Project Report (DPRs) for
each proposed road work in accordance with the Rural Roads Manual and
instructions issued from time to time.

7.4 While commencing with the preparation of the DPR, the PIU will hold a
consultation with the local community through the mechanism of the Gram
Panchayat in order to determine the most suitable alignment, sort out issues of

18
land availability (including forest land) especially due to road widening / minor
change in alignment etc., proposed tree plantation, moderate any adverse
social and environmental impact and elicit necessary community participation in
the programme. For this purpose the PIU will organise a formal ‘Transect
Walk’ as follows:

i. The Transect walk shall be undertaken by the AE/JE,

accompanied by the Patwari, the local SHO of Police or his
representative dealing with the traffic, and the Pradhan/ Panch of
the Panchayat / Ward and local member of the Intermediate and
District Panchayat after adequate advance publicity. The Project
Affected Persons and local Forest official may also be associated.

ii. During the walk, issues relating to minor changes in alignments,

land requirements for the road and tree plantation, its impact on
landowners, etc. will be discussed with members of the local
community present.

iii. Environmental impact on vegetation, soil and water etc. shall be

identified for resolution.

iv. At least Ten digital photographs of the Transect walk and some
digital photographs of the Gram Sabha meeting must be taken.

v. During the walk, due opportunity shall be given to Project Affected

Persons to put forward their points of view, and they must be
given written notice in advance.

At the end of the walk, a Gram Sabha Meeting shall be held, alignment shall be
finalised after recording the issues that arose during the walk and the action
taken / proposed to resolve the issues. This shall be reduced to writing in the
form of Minutes of the Gram Sabha Meeting signed by the Pradhan / Panch,
Intermediate/District Panchayat Member, if present, Secretary of the Gram
Panchayat, other officials and Gram Sabha Members present. A copy of these
minutes along with at least 10 digital photographs of Transect Walk and some
digital photographs of Gram Sabha must be attached to the finalised DPR.

7.5 Even though the roads taken under PMGSY-II require only upgradation
of the existing roads whose alignment is already fixed, still a transect walk is

19
important, because of possible requirement of private land for road widening or
improvement in road geometrics and for tree plantations on roadside. A
transect walk is also important to identify road safety problems of pedestrians
etc. including school children or at pedestrian crossings.

As part of PMGSY-II, a practical and implementable Environmental Social

Management Frame work (ESMF) should be developed for use in the Rural
Roads Sector, as part of the efforts to improve social acceptance for road
projects. Funds from CAMPA, Mineral cess and other similar sources need to
be dovetailed. In this connection, the guidelines issued by NRRDA for ESMF
and provisions of ECoP should be followed.

7.6 The PIU will ensure the following in preparing the Detailed Project reports:

(i) The Rural Roads constructed under PMGSY-II must meet the
technical specifications and geometric design standards given in
the M o R D ’ s Specifications for Rural Roads, Rural
Roads Manual of the IRC (IRC:SP20:2002) and also, where
required, the Hill Road Manual (IRC:SP:48-1998).

(ii) Independent Traffic survey will be done on all Candidate roads and
corresponding MDRs.

(iii) The choice of design and surface for the road would be determined,
inter alia, by factors like traffic, soil type and rainfall, following the
technical specifications laid down in the Guidelines for the design
of Flexible pavements for Low volume rural roads (IRC:SP:72-2007)
or IRC (SP-37-2012) and guidelines for design of rigid pavements
(IRC: SP 62: 2004)

(iv) Where the road passes through a Habitation, the road in the built-
up area and for 50 metres on either side may be appropriately
designed preferably as a Cement Road or with Paved Stones,
besides being provided with side drains. Appropriate side drains
and cross drainage will be provided, so that improper drainage
does not damage the road or the dwellings alongside.

20
 (v) In case the road passes through a market centre or through
school or other faculty attracting large number of people who may
require to cross the road, a light overhead steel pedestrian
crossing may be provided in case speed reducing devices are
likely to be inadequate for the given traffic pattern.

(vi) Wherever local materials, including Fly Ash, are available, they
should be prescribed subject to adherence to technical norms and
relevant Codes of Practice.

(vii) Rural Roads constructed under PMGSY must have proper

embankment and drainage. Adequate number and type of Cross
Drainage (CD) works, including causeways, where appropriate,
must be provided based on site requirements ascertained through
necessary investigations. Minor bridges (of single lane
specifications only) may be provided where necessary. In case
the length of an individual bridge exceeds 15m, a separate DPR
will be prepared after site inspection jointly by the Superintending
Engineer and the State Technical Agency/CE/nominated NQM.
In case the length exceeds 25m, the project will be separately
executed by the engineering division of the State Government
having jurisdiction.

7.7 A separate maintenance component to be funded by the State Government

out of its resources will also be provided in the DPR, consisting of 5-year routine
maintenance cost and cost of renewal at the end of the period. The maintenance
component will be contracted out along with the upgradation, to the same contractor.

7.8 The cost of preparing DPR, including survey and investigations, safety
audit, and testing of materials will form part of the project cost, and will be
shared between State and Cent ral Government in the same ratio as the
main project.

7.9 The detailed estimates will be based on the State Schedule of Rates (SSR)
prepared using the Book of Specifications and Standard Data Book prescribed by
the NRRDA.

7.10 The Schedule of Rates (SoR) for States/UTs shall be published annually

21
and used for all rural roads. The SOR shall be got vetted from NRRDA before
publication. The Schedule of Rates may be State/ Circle specific.

7.11 Costing of projects under PMGSY-II

The cost of the each project will cover the cost of construction and administrative
cost. The cost of construction will be shared between Central Government and
State Government in the ratio given in para 4.1. However, tender premium shall
be borne by the State Government in the manner given in para 11.5. The
administrative costs will be shared in the manner provided in para 12.2.

In order to meet the State share under PMGSY-II, States may use NABARD’s
RIDF loan facility or levy additional taxes, utilize Mandi related revenues etc. For
the roads having traffic due to mining vehicles, mineral cess funds should be used
by the States wherever possible.

Maintenance and renewal costs will be borne fully by the State Governments.

8. PROGRAMMATIC REQUIREMENTS:

8.1 On the part of the States, readiness on the following State Specific generic
issues would be a pre-requisite to participate in PMGSY II.

(i) Administrative arrangements for paperless management of the

programme through use of online systems (including OMMAS
accounting system).

(ii) Development of updated DRRP on GIS platform with both spatial

and attribute data

(iii) Updation of data on OMMAS, with no data gaps, covering separate

provisions for PMGSY-I and PMGSY-II and RIDF (in case of loan
availed for State share).

(iv) Maintenance of PMGSY roads as per provisions of PMGSY-I, inter

alia covering five-year post construction maintenance, maintenance
beyond the aforesaid period and periodic renewal as per paragraph
22
 8.6 of the PMGSY I Guidelines. Notably, any State/UT which
defaults in ensuring maintenance during or after the five year
contracted period for the roads undertaken PMGSY-I, shall not be
eligible for assistance to upgrade that road under PMGSY-II.

(v) All SRRDAs of participating States/UTs shall enter into an MoU with
NRRDA to ensure compliance with maintenance obligations under
PMGSY-II. This MoU would also cover issues relating to quality
management, executional capacity, online programme and accounts
management, road safety and community participation.

(vi) PCI survey of DRRP roads on an ongoing basis with a 2 year cycle
with data being reflected on OMMAS and on the GIS.

(vii) Publication of annual road list including details of contracted

maintenance expenditure and financial year- wise actual
expenditure.

In addition, for each specific set of proposals the following would also be
required before the proposals can be considered by the Empowered
Committee:

8.2 Proposal Specific Requirements

(i) An independent safety audit of the roads as a part of the DPR.

(ii) Mandatory certificates regarding land availability etc., from the
competent authorities.

(iii) Recommendations of SLSC, including indication of availability of

States share (and source of case of loan etc).
(iv) Formats similar to MP-I, MP-II and MP-III.
(v) Proper Maintenance provisions made for the proposed roads:

a) For routine maintenance for 5-years post-construction in a

composite contract with the construction contractor

b) For Renewal after the above period

c) For routine maintenance post above period

d) For balance lifecycle to be followed by another Upgradation

23
9. SCRUTINY OF ANNUAL PROPOSALS

9.1 After making entries in the On-Line Management, Monitoring and

Accounting System (OMMAS) Software (see para 16.1), the PIU will forward the
annual proposals along with the Detailed Project Reports to the STAs for scrutiny
of the design and estimates. It must be ensured that all requisite details of the
DPRs are entered in OMMAS in order to enable the STA to complete the online
check.

9.2 After verifying that the DPRs have been entered on OMMAS, the
DPRsare to be scrutinised by the STAs in the light of the PMGSY Guidelines,
IRC specifications as contained in the Rural Roads Manual (IRC SP20:2002)
and where necessary the Hill Road Manual, and the applicable Schedule of
Rates. In doing so, it shall be ensured that no lead charges would be payable
for transportation of soil (except in case of Black Cotton Soil / Sodic soil or in
village portions). The STA will in particular check the following:

(i) Conformation to CUCPL

(ii) Certificate of land availability;

(iii) Conformation to design standards as per properly conducted traffic

survey

(iv) Separate DPR where length of bridge exceeds 15 meters;

(v) Economy of design, including use of, local and marginal materials and
fly-ash;

(vi) Preparation of estimates for 5-year routine maintenance and periodic

renewal.
(vii) Compliance with ESMF(ECOP)
(viii) Adequate measures to address road safety measures in line with
proceedings of Transact Walk.

Since the roads taken are important roads carrying higher intensity of traffic, the
design should satisfy the projected traffic requirements.

9.3 After checking the DPRs and ensuring that they conform to programme
requirements, the STA will clear them and makeentries accordingly in OMMAS.

24
9.4 The SRRDA will then forward the soft copy of the corrected DPRs to
NRRDA. The NRRDA will scrutinize the proposals received from the SRRDA
to ensure that the proposals have been made duly keeping in view the
Programme Guidelines and that they have been duly verified by the STAs.
DPRs will be test checked based in OMMAS data entries. The annual
proposals for each State would then be put up before the Empowered Committee
for consideration after examination by the Rural Connectivity Division to ensure
that they are complete and can be considered for approval.

9.5 Under PMGSY-II, the scrutiny of project proposals will be made 100% on-
line at all levels. The projects would be uploaded on OMMAS by the executing
agencies for scrutiny at STA level with all details including estimates and
drawings. STAs would scrutinize the projects on-line and will recommend the
projects on-line itself. STAs may also give remarks, if any on the proposal. PTAs
would further scrutinize at least 10 % of the STA scrutinized proposals on sample
basis, though this would be done parallel to the approval process and would be
used mainly to improve quality of DPRs.

10. EMPOWERED COMMITTEE

10.1 While clearing the projects of PMGSY-II, the Empowered Committee would
adopt the same procedure as in para 10.1 of PMGSY-I guidelines. It would also
ensure that the States/UTs have fully complied with the requirements of Online
Monitoring Management and Accounting System (OMMAS). Empowered
Committee would review the performance of the State/UT based on OMMAS only,
as under PMGSY-II, it would be a transaction based information system.

The Composition of Empowered Committee is as given below:

Secretary (RD) Chairman

Financial Adviser (RD) Member
Adviser, Planning Commission Member
Director, CRRI Member
CE, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Member
JS, Border Management, MHA Member
Joint Secretary (RC) Member Convener

Representatives of the State Government would be special invitees.

25
10.2 Clearance of the annual proposals will be in the same manner as for
PMGSY-I, i.e. as per para 10.1 and 10.2 of the PMGSY-I Guidelines.

11. TENDERING OF WORKS

11.1 The procurement of works under PMGSY-II would be 100% through e-

tendering.

11.2 After the annual proposals have been Cleared and Technical Sanction has
been accorded, the Executing Agency would invite tenders. The well-established
procedure for tendering, through competitive bidding, would be followed for all
projects. All the projects scrutinised by the STA and cleared by the Ministry, will be
tendered as such, and no changes shall be made in the work without the prior
approval of the NRRDA. The States will follow the Standard Bidding Document
(SBD), prescribed by the NRRDA, for all the tenders.

11.3 Since PMGSY places high emphasis on time and quality, States shall
take steps to increase competition and Bid capacity. To this end States shall
ensure that all Tender notices are put out on the Internet under the OMMAS.
Centralised evaluation of Bid capacity will be done to give effect to the
provision of the SBD. States should empower the SRRDA to call and decide
tenders in the interest of speeding up the process.

11.4 The tendering and contracting process and time periods will be as per
the SBD. The State shall at all times update the OMMAS tendering module to
enable downloading of tender documents. Details of contracts entered into shall
also be immediately entered into database.

11.5 With the use of annual State Schedule of Rates it is expected that on
average the tendered value would approximate the estimated value. All costs
due to time over run, arbitration/judicial award shall be borne by the State
Government. In case the value of tenders received is above the estimate that
has been cleared by the Ministry, the difference (tender premium) pooled for
the entire District for works cleared in a batch will be borne by the State
Government.

In case there is material change in the scope of work or quantities, prior

approval of NRRDA shall be obtained and difference absorbed in the District
26
level surplus within the batch failing which net savings at State level within the
phase/ batch will be used for the purpose. Data change in OMMAS in such cases
would be made with NRRDA’s authorization.

12. PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION UNITS

12.1 At the District level, the Programme would be co-ordinated, and

implemented through a dedicated Programme Implementation Unit (PIU)
similar to the ones established for PMGSY-I, consisting of adequate technical
staff as per norms specified by NRRDA. PIUs in PMGSY-II shall not do any
other work, in order to ensure the integrity and consistency of the programme
with its emphasis on quality. All PIUs will be manned by competent technical
personnel from amongst the available staff or through deputation from other
similar departments. In exceptional cases and with the prior approval of NRRDA,
Consultants may be engaged to build up or enhance capacity. NRRDA’s Model
documents shall be used for the purpose.

12.2 All staff costs will be borne by the State Government. The Pradhan Mantri
Gram Sadak Yojana does not provide for any staff costs. However, the
administrative and travel expenses of PIUs and SRRDA costs will be met to the
following extent, with the State Government bearing any additional costs:

Item % of funds released

(a) Admin. expenses for PIUs 0.85%
(b) Travel Expenses of PIUs 0.45%
(c) Admin. & Travel expenses (SRRDA) 0.20% (Rs 50 lakh maximum)*
(d) Independent Quality Monitoring and 0.50%
road safety 2nd tier

* Excluding cost of procurement of computer hardwares and laboratory equipment

For this purpose:

(i) Administrative expenses shall, in addition to usual office expenses,

include all expenses incurred in relation to the operation of the
OMMAS computers and their maintenance, including internet
charges and data entry costs. Amounts paid on account of
outsourcing of execution and management related functions may
also be paid out of administrative expenses within the limits
prescribed. However, expenditure on purchase of vehicles, payment
of salaries & wages and purchase or construction of buildings is not
permissible.

27
(ii) Upgradation/replacement of computer hardware of the SRRDAs and
PIUs as well as provision of hardware to the newly established PIUs
for operationalisation of OMMAS would be a permissible item of
administrative expenditure.

(iii) Procurement of laboratory equipments for the newly established

laboratories at the district, regional and state level as well as for
strengthening of the existing laboratories at these levels would also
be an admissible item of expenditure under administrative expenses.

(iv) Procurement of computer hardware and laboratory equipment as

suggested above would be allowed within the limit of 1.75% of funds
released to the SRRDAs and the PIUs for their administrative and
travel expenses. However, 0.50% of funds which has been provided
for the second tier quality monitoring should not be used for this
purpose.

(v) The ceiling of Rs. 50 lakhs for administrative and travel expenses of
SRRDA is exclusive of expenditure incurred on procurement of
computer hardware for the SRRDA/PIUs and procurement of
laboratory equipment for district, regional, State level laboratories.

(vi) The amounts shall be released to the SRRDA along with programme
fund releases. The SRRDA shall further allocate the amounts (by
way of limits set by the Empowered Officer) in respect of sl. no. a) &
b) to PIUs generally in proportion to the funds released to them, also
keeping in view the actual pace of work and requirements in the
PIUs.

(vii) In case works lapse or are dropped at a later stage, necessary

adjustment will be made while releasing the next tranche of
expenses.

(viii) Funds for the purpose will be kept in a separate account

‘Administrative Expenses Fund Account’ operated in a manner
similar to the Programme Fund Account (see Para 18). State
Government funds for administrative expenses and incomes of the
Agency used for administrative purposes may also be kept in the
same account, but no other funds shall be credited to the account
nor shall the account be used other than for defraying admissible
administrative, travel and quality monitoring expenses.

(ix) The releases of administrative and travel expenses shall be

dependent on:

(a) Continued updating of OMMAS modules

(b) Appropriate dedication of the PIU and its clear linkage to the
SRRDA; and

(c) Adequate institutional mechanism at the SRRDA level

including nodal IT officer, State Quality Coordinator, Financial
Controller, Empowered Officer, Maintenance & Safety Officer.

28
12.3 No Agency charges will be admissible for road works taken up under this
Programme. In case Executing Agencies levy charges in any form, such as
Centage charges etc., it would have to be borne by the State Government.

13. EXECUTION OF WORKS

13.1 The relevant projects would be executed by the PIUs and completed
within a period of 9 months from the date of issue of the Work order (Under IAP
districts a period of 12 working months can be given, subject to no cost
escalation on the Central share which is stipulated as 90% for such areas). A
Work Programme shall be obtained from the contractor for each work and
approved by the PIU. Payment shall be made only after the approval of the work
programme, deployment by the Contractor of the requisite number of engineers
and setting up of the Quality Control Laboratory at site. In this connection, it is
clarified that:

(i) The period of 9 months shall comprise 9 working months. In case

the period for execution is likely to be adversely affected by
monsoon or other seasonal factors, the time period for execution
may be suitably determined while approving the work programme,
but shall not exceed 12 calendar months in any case.

(ii) Where a package comprises more than one roadwork, the total
time given for completion of the package shall not exceed 12
calendar months.

(iii) Similarly, time period of 18-24 months would be allowed for

completion of cross drainage works exceeding 25 meter length,
depending on site conditions. In both cases, however, no extra
liability, if any, on account of cost escalation shall be met from the
programme funds provided by the Ministry of Rural Development.
These conditions may be incorporated in the bid documents for
bids to be invited for PMGSY projects in future.

29
 (iv) Time period provided in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) and the
Work Programme shall be strictly enforced. Since time is the
essence of the contract, action must be taken against the
contractor in cases of delay, as per the contract provisions.

13.2 With the above schedule and considering 75 days as the average
tendering time, all cleared works should be able to be reported as completed at
the end of 15th month from clearance by the Ministry. The eligibility for release of
second installment of a subsequent years’ cleared works will be determined
accordingly (refer to Para 19).

13.3 An important principle of the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana is the
assured availability of funds, so as to facilitate timely completion of road works. It
shall be the responsibility of the Executing Agencies to ensure timely payments
to the contractors, subject to satisfactory execution of work. Delays in payment
due should be avoided. Settlement of final bill with the contractor will be one of
the parameters for monitoring the successful execution of works and data entry
on OMMAS of the financial completion of the works will be the only methodology
for computing the number of works that have been completed.

13.4 To maintain quality, ensure timely completion of works and encourage

rural road network maintenance, the Ministry of Rural Development may lay
down schemes of incentives / disincentives for the States.

13.5 The execution of works under PMGSY-II will be on lines similar to as that
of PMGSY-I. However, adequate attention is to be given by the executing
agency keeping in view the importance of roads taken in PMGSY-II and all
efforts shall be made to make sure that the provisions made in the DPRs are
transferred on to the ground faithfully maintaining the quality at each stage of
execution and strictly adhering to the Stage Passing system.

NRRDA will issue detailed guidelines on Contractor development to facilitate

competition and ensure quality and efficiency. This will include a transparent rating
system. NRRDA will also develop model guidelines to facilitate early stage
contracting and performance based contracts for roads taken up under PMGSY-II.

30
14. NATIONAL RURAL ROADS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

14.1 The Ministry of Rural Development has set up the National Rural Roads
Development Agency (NRRDA) to provide Operational and Management support to
the Programme. The NRRDA will provide support, inter alia, on the following:

(i) Designs & Specifications and Cost norms.

(ii) Technical Agencies

(iii) District Rural Roads Plans

(iv) Scrutiny of Project Proposals

(v) Quality Assurance

(vi) Monitoring of progress, including online monitoring

(vii) R&D, including use of local and marginal materials

(viii) Human Resource Development

(ix) Road Safety

(x) Communications.

14.2 All State Governments would ensure timely furnishing of all necessary reports,
data and information to the National Rural Roads Development Agency.

14.3 For effective overseeing of execution and monitoring of PMGSY-II projects,

the National Rural Roads Development Agency (NRRDA) would be strengthened
to provide adequate technical support to the programme. The structure of PTAs
and STAs would be further strengthened to provide technical and management
support to NRRDA. The broad structure of NRRDA would be as follows:

31
Director Director Director Director Director Director Director
Monitoring Maintenance,
Technical Capacity, Quality & OMMAS F&A
Road Safety
HR, R&D & Communi-
& GIS
Training cation

15. QUALITY CONTROL MECHANISM

15.1 Ensuring the quality of the road works is the responsibility of the State
Governments who are implementing the Programme. Quality shall be ensured in
relation to both construction and maintenance. To this end, all works will be
effectively supervised. The NRRDA will issue general guidelines on Quality
Control and prescribe a Quality Control Handbook to regulate the quality control
process at works level. Quality Control Registers containing the results of tests
prescribed in the Quality Control Handbook shall invariably be maintained for each
of the road works. A site Quality Control Laboratory will be set up by the
Contractor for each package. Payments shall not be made to the Contractor
unless the Laboratory has been duly set up and equipped, quality control tests are
regularly conducted, recorded and have been found to be successful. The
Standard Bidding Document (see Para 11) shall incorporate suitable clauses for
ensuring Quality Control and a Performance Guarantee by the Contractor, which
should be discharged only after consulting the Panchayati Raj Institutions
responsible for maintenance.

15.2 A three-tier Quality Control mechanism is envisaged under the Pradhan

Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana. The State Governments would be responsible for the
first two tiers of the Quality Control Structure. The PIU will be the first tier, whose
primary responsibility will be to ensure that all the materials utilised and the
workmanship in execution conform to the prescribed specifications. As the first
tier, the PIU will supervise the site quality control laboratory set up by the
contractor. It shall also ensure that all the tests prescribed are carried out at the
specified time and place by the specified person/ authority.

15.3 As the Second tier of the Quality Control structure, periodic inspections of

32
works will be carried out by Quality Control Units, engaged by the State
Government, independent of the PIUs. These Agencies (who will be called State
Quality Monitors) will be institutions engaged through a transparent process, on a
Quality cum Cost Basis System (QCBS), keeping in view their expertise to provide
quality assurance services. They would be expected to carry out regular
inspections and also get samples of material used tested in laboratories of the
State Government as well as, in certain cases, independent laboratories, e.g.
those of the State Technical Agencies. The NRRDA will issue detailed guidelines
in this regard. SQMs would be provided guidelines enabling them to graduate in
case the State Government so decides, to the level of ‘Managing Agent’, with
powers to approve (in consultation with the STA) small changes in design to
improve quality, road safety and maintenance.

15.4 Each State Government will appoint, after consultation with NRRDA, a
senior Engineer (not below the rank of Superintending Engineer) to function as
State Quality Coordinator (SQC) at the State level. His function will be to oversee
the satisfactory functioning of the Quality control mechanism within the State. This
function would also involve overseeing the follow up action on the reports of the
National Quality Monitors. The Quality Coordinator should be part of the SRRDA.
State Quality Coordinators should be appointed keeping in view the following:-

(i) He/ She should be graduate Civil Engineer not below the rank of
Superintending Engineer
(ii) He / She must possess field experience of working for construction
of roads for at least five years in last ten years. Also in the last five
years he / she should have worked for at least two years in the field
of construction / maintenance of road works.

15.5 As third tier of the Quality Control Structure, the NRRDA will engage
Independent Monitors (Individuals / Agency) for inspection at random, of the road
works under the Programme. These persons will be designated as National
Quality Monitors (NQMs). It will be the responsibility of the PIU to facilitate the
inspection of works by the NQM, who shall be given free access to all
administrative, technical and financial records. NQMs shall report on the general
33
functioning of the Quality Control mechanism in the District. The Monitors shall
submit their report to the NRRDA. The reports of the NQMs will be sent by
NRRDA to the State Quality Coordinator for appropriate action within a period to
be specified.

15.6 In case quality check by SQM or NQM reveals ‘unsatisfactory’ work, the
PIU shall ensure that the contractor replaces the material or rectifies the
workmanship (as the case may be) within the time period stipulated. In respect of
NQM Reports, the SQC shall, each month, report on the action taken on each of
the pending Reports. All works rated ‘unsatisfactory’ shall be re-inspected by an
SQM or NQM after a rectification report has been received from the State Quality
Coordinator. In case a completed work is found unsatisfactory, the State
Government will be liable to refund the Central share expended on the work.

15.7 Recurrent adverse reports about quality of road works or their maintenance
in a given District / State will entail suspension of the Programme in that area till
the underlying causes of defective work have been addressed.

15.8 The State Quality Coordinator/ Head of PIU shall be the authority to receive
and inquire into complaints/representations in respect of quality of works and they
would be responsible for sending a reply, after proper investigation, to the
complainant within 30 days. The SRRDA, for this purpose, shall ensure the
following:

(i) The name, address and other details of the State Quality
Coordinator will be given adequate publicity in the State (including
tender notices, websites, etc.) as the authority empowered to
receive complaints.
(ii) The State Quality Coordinator shall register all complaints and will
get them enquired into by the PIU or if circumstances so require, by
deputing a State Quality Monitor.

(iii) All complaints shall be acknowledged on receipt (giving registration

no.) and likely date of reply shall be indicated. On receipt of the

34
 report, the complainant shall be informed of the outcome and the
action taken / proposed.
(iv) Action on anonymous/ pseudonymous complaints will be taken as
per extant instructions of the State Government.
(v) Complaints received through the Ministry of Rural Development /
NRRDA will normally be sent to the State Quality Coordinator for
enquiry and necessary action. In case report from an SQM is
desired, this shall be furnished within the time specified. In case an
adequate response is not received within the stated time schedule,
the NRRDA may depute an NQM and further processing will be
done only on the basis of NQM report.
(vi) The SQC shall make a monthly report to the State Nodal
Department / State Rural Roads Agency (in a prescribed format) and
the status of action on complaints shall be discussed in the State-
level Standing Committee.
The NRRDA shall monitor the working of the mechanism.

15.9 Quality Control expenses of the 2nd tier will be borne by the programme in
respect of Institution engaged in accordance with procedures approved by
NRRDA and for expenses and testing fee etc., admissible as per PMGSY
monitoring Guidelines. An amount upto 0.50% of the cleared project cost shall be
released to the SRRDA for the purpose, as a proportion of the programme fund
released. The funds shall be credited to the Administrative Fund Account of the
SRRDA (see Para 12.2).

15.10.1 The Superintending Engineer concerned of the zone/region will request

the MP and Zilla Pramukh representing that zone/region once in six months to
select any PMGSY project(s) for joint inspection. The schedule of joint inspection
will be fixed as per the convenience of the MP/Zilla Pramukh.
15.10.2 The Executive Engineer in-charge of a division will request the MLA and
Chairperson of the Intermediate Panchayat concerned once in three months for
joint inspection of any PMGSY project(s) as per their choice and according to their
convenience.

35
15.10.3 Similarly, the Assistant Engineer in-charge of the sub-division will request
the concerned Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat once in two months to select any
PMGSY project(s) for joint inspection. Joint inspection of the project(s) may be
arranged as per their convenience.

15.11 In sum, the PIU as the first level of quality control is directly responsible for
quality management ,i.e ensuring that at all times the contractor is delivering
quality in materials and workmanship in accordance with the specifications of the
DPR and conditions of the contract. The second level of quality control, of SQMs
under the SQC are responsible for Quality control i.e ensuring that the contractor
and the PIUs are working to achieve quality standards as per the prescribed
standards. The third level of quality control is in reality a quality assurance
mechanism. The NQMs are expected to randomly inspect works to ensure that
the State Quality control systems are working satisfactorily and will deliver the
requisite quality. The three sub-systems are thus not interchangeable, and need
to work in tandem.

The three tier mechanism of quality management adopted in the implementation

of PMGSY-I may be used in PMGSY-II to the extent they are in accordance to
these guidelines. However since there is a thrust in PMGSY-II on R&D and use of
innovative technologies, more rigorous quality control management is necessary.
It is emphasized that in the quality management of PMGSY-II works, quality
assurance, quality control and quality audit, would be strictly followed.

In PMGSY-I the reports of second and third tier quality control officers, after their
inspection are uploaded on to the OMMAS for facilitating verification and
monitoring online. In PMGSY-II, quality tests of key parameters will be made
online even for the first tier, the balance being kept at the PIU level. OMMAS will
be modified for the purpose.

The implementation of projects under PMGSY-II will be monitored through

Regional Review Meetings, Empowered Committee Meetings, periodic reports
on OMMAS etc. The web based OMMAS would be a transaction based
management system in order to monitor the projects on a continuous basis.
OMMAS would enable PMGSY-II become a paperless management
36
programme, and regular updation of OMMAS data by the implementing agency
would be the pre-requisite for holding Empowered Committee Meeting as
OMMAS would function as a decision support system.

NRRDA will issue detailed guidelines on procedures required to move

into paperless management of the programme.

16. MONITORING

16.1 Effective monitoring of the Programme being critical, the State Governments
will ensure that the officials are prompt in sending the requisite reports /
information to the SRRDA as well as the NRRDA. The On-line Management,
Monitoring and Accounting System (OMMAS), developed for the purpose will be
the chief mechanism for monitoring the Programme. To this end, the officials are
required to furnish, ‘On-line’, all the data and information, as may be prescribed by
the NRRDA from time to time, in the relevant module of the OMMAS. They shall
be responsible for uninterrupted maintenance of the Computer Hardware and
Software as well as the Internet connectivity. The Software for the OMMAS
developed by the NRRDA shall not be modified at any level in the States; any
requirement or suggestion for change shall be intimated to the NRRDA.

16.2 The State Government would provide necessary manpower, space and
facilities to set up the Computer Hardware at the District and State Level. Since
the data would reside on the State Servers, the State level Agency must ensure
that the State Server is functional all 24 hours.

16.3 It shall be the responsibility of the Executive Engineer / Head of the PIU to
ensure effective up-time and Internet connectivity of the computers at the PIU /
District level. He shall be responsible for ensuring placement of all Master data
including the Rural Roads Plan in the database and for the constant updating and
accuracy of data relating to the progress of road works, record of Quality control

37
tests as well as the payments made. Principal Secretary / Secretary In-Charge of
PMGSY shall also ensure regular updating of data on OMMAS. In case of
continued failure to update data on the OMMAS, further releases to the State /
district concerned would be adversely affected.

16.4 Each State Government would identify one officer of sufficient seniority and
having adequate knowledge of Information Technology to function as State IT
Nodal Officer. His function will be to oversee the regularity and accuracy of the
data being furnished by the Districts. The IT Nodal Officer, who shall form part of
the SRRDA, shall also be responsible to oversee the upkeep of the Hardware and
Software as well as the computer training requirements of the personnel dealing
with the PMGSY-II.

16.5 The District Vigilance & Monitoring Committee set up by the Ministry will
also monitor the progress and exercise vigilance in respect of PMGSY-II.

17. MAINTENANCE OF RURAL ROADS

17.1 PMGSY is a huge central investment in the State sector as part of a

poverty reduction strategy. This investment in essentially the ‘last mile’
connectivity is likely to be useful only if all the links of the network are maintained
in good condition. In the context of a farm to market connectivity, proper
maintenance is essential if risks of long term investments, on-farm as well as off-
farm, are to be taken by the rural entrepreneur. Similarly, sustainable livelihood
opportunities are possible only if the connectivity to the Rural Hub is assured on
an ongoing basis. Accordingly, the putting in place of institutional measures to
ensure systematic maintenance and providing adequate funding for maintenance,
particularly the Through Routes, will be key to the continuance of the PMGSY
programme in the State. To this end, State Governments will take steps to build
up capacity in the District Panchayats and shall endeavour to devolve the funds
and functionaries onto these Panchayats in order to be able to manage
maintenance contracts for rural roads.

17.2 All PMGSY-II roads (including associated Main Rural Links / Through
Routes of PMGSY link routes) will be covered by 5-year maintenance contracts,
38
(see Para 8.2 (v) (a)) to be entered into along with the construction contract, with
the same contractor, as per the Standard Bidding Document. Maintenance funds
to service the contract will be budgeted by the State Government and placed at
the disposal of the SRRDA in a separate Maintenance Fund Account within the
stipulated time i.e. 50% by 31st May and remaining 50% by 30th November of
each financial year.

17.3 Since rural Through Routes/Main Rural Links carry comparatively larger
traffic and keeping them in good condition is particularly important, Through
Routes (whether upgraded under PMGSY or subjected to maintenance contract
as an associated Through Route of a PMGSY link route as per Para 6.6.2) on
expiry of 5-year post-construction maintenance (see Para 8.6 and 17.2) shall be
placed under Zonal maintenance contracts consisting of 5-year maintenance
including renewal as per cycle. The State Government will make the necessary
budget provision and place the funds to service the zonal maintenance contracts
at the disposal of the SRRDA in the Maintenance Fund Account.

17.4 A big thrust will be the capacity creation in the District level PRIs for
maintenance. The goal will be to ensure that by the end of the programme, all
Batch Maintenance Contracts are awarded and maintained by the districts’
Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs). NRRDA will develop community based and
community supported maintenance management methodologies for the purpose.
Till such time as District Panchayats take over maintenance functions, the PIUs
will continue to be responsible for administration of post-construction and zonal
maintenance contracts on PMGSY-II roads also.

17.5 State Governments shall endeavour to develop sustainable sources of

funding for maintenance of rural roads and shall ensure that the SRRDA:

(a) Prepares and submits to the State Nodal Department and NRRDA
an annual estimate of funds for proper maintenance of the Rural
Core Network and roads taken up under PMGSY-II.
(b) Enforces a prioritization criterion for allocation of budgeted
maintenance funds. The criteria may be developed in consultation
with NRRDA, based on the Pavement Condition Index (PCI), giving

39
 weightage to conditions like traffic / population.
(c) Liaises with the executing agencies receiving maintenance funding
for rural roads to ensure coordinated application of the prioritization
criteria; and
(d) publishes an annual PIU wise Road Asset Valuation and Network
Asset Valuation based on road maintenance investments.

17.6 The experience during PMGSY-I implementation on the maintenance of

Rural Roads is far from satisfactory. Therefore, a scientific Rural Road
Maintenance Management Policy needs to be developed put in place and fully
followed by the States/UTs. The policy evolved by the State incorporating State
specific conditions ensuring adequate maintenance investment, should be shared
with NRRDA. In the light of the fact that the 12th and 13th Finance Commissions,
while awarding funds for road maintenance, had commented on the need for the
maintenance management of Rural Roads, It is necessary now to properly
account for maintenance expenditure. Accordingly a road wise maintenance
accounts module shall be established on OMMAS for monitoring, maintenance
management online, based on a scientific Maintenance Management System
(MMS) and Asset Valuation Principles. Since the updated DRRP is on GIS
platform the road wise maintenance expenditure be put as an add on layer for
enabling timely monitoring of maintenance management for each road.

17.7 NRRDA will develop a framework for maintenance and issue detailed
guidelines on maintenance management including performance based
maintenance and local contractor development for area based maintenance.

18. RURAL ROADS SAFETY

Since rural roads are generally low traffic volume roads and accident rates are
presently quite low, safety issues relate mainly to design and construction features
and road safety consciousness of local residents. At the Central level, these
issues will be addressed through coordination with the Road Safety Mission of the
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways. At the State level, the State Quality
Coordinator at State level and the Head of the DPIU at District level shall be
tasked by the State Governments to coordinate with the State Governments road

40
safety mechanisms and programmes, in particular through membership of the
State Road Safety Council and District Road Safety Committees respectively
created as per provision of Section 215 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act
No.59 of 1988).

As part of the rural road development and maintenance programmes, the State
Government shall ensure road safety audit of PMGSY-I works along with
quality monitoring. It shall also ensure adequate involvement of Panchayat Raj
Institutions in road safety awareness programmes. Awareness raising activities
including publication of pamphlets, audio-visuals, interactive programmes etc. will
be funded on the basis of annual proposals to be forwarded for clearance of the
Empowered Committee along with the road proposals.

Since PMGSY-II covers important Through routes and Major Rural Links expected
to carry high volume of traffic, road safety shall be ensured through road safety
audit at the design stage, during implementation and after completion of the
project. Special attention is required in correcting geometrical deficiencies of old
roads while preparing the detailed project report. The road safety audit is to be
carried out by trained personnel either from PTAs/STAs or other agencies like
CRRI.

NRRDA will issue a detailed Guidelines on Road Safety in the Rural Roads
Network which shall include provisions for building up of road user communities to
support maintenance and safety interventions.

Part III. FLOW OF FUNDS, PROCEDURE FOR RELEASE AND AUDIT of

PMGSY-II

19. FLOW OF FUNDS

19.1 The cost of the project will include cost of construction (preparation of
DPR and construction cost) and Administrative costs (limited to 2% of
construction cost of Central share). The cost of the project will be shared
between Central Government and State Government as follows:-

% of total project cost

Sharing
Special Areas Normal Areas
Central Government 90 75
State Government 10 25

41
19.2 The funds for the cleared value of PMGSY II upgradation cost will be
made available to the SRRDA in two instalments

a) The first instalment amounting to 50% of the cleared project shall

be released subject to fulfilment of requisite conditions.

b) Release of second installment of 50% of project would be subject

to utilisation of 60% of the available funds and completion of at
least 80% of the road works awarded in the year previous to the
preceding year and 100% of the awarded works of all the years
preceding that year and fulfillment of other requisite conditions if
any stipulated while releasing the previous installment.

19.3 Central share for each installment will be released subject to the
condition that State Government has first credited its share in the Bank account
of the SRRDA.

19.4 The interest accrued on the funds deposited in the banks as well as
amount received towards liquidated damages if any, are Miscellaneous receipts
shall also counts towards release of Funds.

19.5 Release of Administrative Expenses fund i.e. 2 % of Central share of the

upgradation construction cost would be released along with each installment of
Programme fund through a different sanction letter for accounting purposes.

19.6 Works cleared and not awarded by the time of the second installment
would be deemed as lapsed and funds released in respect of un awarded
works will be adjusted against the further releases by the respective
Government. Where a work is declared ‘unsatisfactory’ on completion, the
amount shall be refunded by the State Government into the programme
account and shall be counted towards ‘available funds’.

19.7 In order to monitor the sharing of fund between Central and State for
PMGSY II i.e. upgradation of roads separate head of account for receipt and
expenditure in the chart of accounts shall be opened in the existing Programme
Fund Account of PMGSY-I.

42
19.8 Funds received from the MoRD and State and releases to PIUs shall be
shown under separate head of accounts to be opened in the chart of accounts.
(Details at Annexure-I). Similarly, for the expenditure the separate head of
account i.e. - “Up gradation of PMGSY-II Roads” shall be opened under which
two sub head (i) Up gradation of PMGSY-II Roads Normal Area (ii) Upgradation
of PMGSY-II Roads Special Area shall be opened for the up gradation of
PMGSY-II Roads in the existing Programme Fund account. (Details at
Annexure II). Besides, the Annexures of accounting entries have been fine
tuned keeping in view that the expenditure when done from SRRDA and PIU
level then expenditure is not to be maintained in the separate heads of
accounts for the funds received from State and Centre. Only at the time of
receipt of the funds, it is to be kept separately in different heads for receipts
from Centre and State so that it can be monitored and duly accounted for.

19.9 Funds for maintenance of PMGSY-II roads during the post construction
5 year maintenance period and also on expiry of five year post construction
period shall be placed at the disposal of SRDDA by State Government. The
State Government will make necessary budget provision to this effect in its
budget.19.10 The release of the second instalment in a year shall be subject to
submission of the following documents:

i. Utilisation Certificate for the funds released earlier, year-wise in

the form prescribed.

ii. Certificate by the Bank Manager indicating the balance amount on

date of issue of the Certificate and the interest credited.

iii. A Certificate regarding the requisite physical completion of works

iv. For all releases after October of a year, production of an Audited

Statement of Accounts and a Balance Sheet and related
Statements, duly certified by the Chartered Accountant for the
accounts of the previous financial year.

v. Outputs of the relevant modules of the OMMAS, duly certified by the

SRRDA as being correct and verified by the NRRDA

43
 vi. A certificate from CEO of SRRDA that Maintenance funds
required as per maintenance contracts in force had been spent
during the previous financial year. For releases after May of an
year, the certificate should also include that 50% of such
maintenance fund requirements for the current Financial Year has
been released by the State, whereas for releases after November
the certificate should be for 100% of such funds.

19.11 For the purpose of releasing funds, the State would be taken as a Unit.
The banking arrangements, procedure for operation of bank account and other
modalities for operationalising the scheme will be similar in PMGSY I as there
is no separate bank account for PMGSY II.

19.12 It should be noted that flow of funds for all three accounts namely
programme fund, administrative fund and m maintenance fund should be
through on line financial management system. NRRDA would give necessary
detailed instructions from time to time.

20. AUDIT
20.1 The SRRDA will ensure that the accounts are audited by a Chartered
Accountant selected from a panel approved by the C&AG, within six months of
the close of the financial year. This account will be supported by a statement of
reconciliation with the accounts of PIUs and a certificate of the Chartered
Accountant on its accuracy.
20.2 In addition to the Audit by the Chartered Accountant, the works under this
Programme would be subject to audit by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor
General of India (C&AG). The Audit of the work done by the C&AG may cover
aspects of quality, in addition to financial audit.

20.3 Both the State level Agency and the PIUs must provide all relevant
information to State and district level Vigilance and Monitoring Committees.

Normal Area Special Area

Entries in the books of SRRDA
(i). Funds received from Central (i) Funds received from
Government for up gradation of Central Government for up
Road gradation of Road

Credit Head Debit Head Credit Head Debit Head

44
Central Bank Account Central Bank Account
Programme Fund Programme Fund
Received for up Received for up
gradation of gradation of
PMGSY-II Road PMGSY-II Road
(Normal area) (Special area)

(ii) Bank Authorisation issued (ii) Bank Authorisation issued

to PIU to PIU
Credit Head Debit Head Credit Head Debit Head
Bank Central Bank Central
Authorisation Programme Authorisation Programme
issued to PIU Fund issued to issued to PIU Fund issued to
PIU for up PIU for up
gradation of gradation of
PMGSY-II PMGSY-II
Road (Normal Road (Special
area) area)

(iii) Funds received from State (iii) Funds received from State
Government for up Government for up
gradation of Road gradation of Road

Credit Head Debit Head Credit Head Debit Head

State Programme Bank Account State Programme Bank Account
Fund Received. Fund Received
for up gradation for up gradation
of PMGSY-II of PMGSY-II
Road (Normal Road (Special
area) area)
(iv). Bank Authorisation issued to (iv) Bank Authorisation issued
PIU to PIU
Credit Head Debit Head Credit Head Debit Head
Bank State Bank State
Authorisation Programme Authorisation Programme
issued to PIU Fund issued to issued to PIU Fund issued to
PIU for up PIU for up
gradation of gradation of
PMGSY-II PMGSY-II
Road (Normal Road (Specail
area) area)
Entries in the books of PIU
(v) On receipt of Bank (v) On receipt of Bank
authorisation for Central authorisation for Central
Programme Fund for Programme Fund for Special area.
normal area.
Credit Head Debit Head
Credit Head Debit Head Central Bank
Programme Authorisation
Fund received Account PIU
by PIU From
SRRDA for up
45
 Central Bank gradation of
Programme Authorisation PMGSY-II
Fund received Account PIU Road (Special
by PIU From area)
SRRDA for up
gradation of
PMGSY-II
Road (Normal
area)

(iv) On receipt of Bank (vi) On receipt of Bank

authorisation for State authorisation for State
Programme Fund for Programme Fund for
normal area. Special area.

Credit Head Debit Head Credit Head Debit Head

State Bank State Bank
Programme Authorisation Programme Authorisation
Fund received Account PIU Fund received Account PIU
by PIU From by PIU From
SRRDA for up SRRDA for up
gradation of gradation of
PMGSY-II PMGSY-II
Road (Normal Road (Special
area) area)

A separate head of account for expenditure i.e. - “Up gradation of PMGSY-II

Roads” shall be opened under which two sub heads (i) Up gradation of
PMGSY-II Roads Normal Area and (ii) Up gradation of PMGSY-II Roads
Special Area shall be opened for the up gradation of PMGSY-II Roads in the
existing Programme Fund account.

Further under these sub heads two links shall be provided i.e.

(a) Expenditure on Up gradation of Roads completed

(b) Expenditure on Up gradation of Roads progress

For the maintenance of roads for initial 5 year separate bank account and
separate books of account shall be maintained by Agency.

21. MISCELLANEOUS

46
21.1 The National Rural Roads Development Agency may, in co-operation with
the State level Agency, organize suitable Training Programmes for the PIU
personnel as well as Contractors engineers.

Concrete steps are suggested for capacity building and imparting training to all the
stakeholders. The example of National Academy of Construction (NAC),
Hyderabad needs to be replicated in different regions of the country for skill
development of construction workers. Vocational training in relevant road related
trades should also be introduced in a few ITIs in each district. SIRDs could be
requested to formulate a skill development strategy for construction workers for
rural infrastructure including rural roads.

The STAs and PTAs can be entrusted with the additional task of providing guest
faculty for training of the REOs so as to provide support to IAHE, CRRI, NIRD
AND SIRDs.

21.2 Planting of fruit bearing and other suitable trees, on both sides of the roads
would be taken up by the State Governments / Panchayats from their own funds or
through convergence with other rural development programmes including
MGNREGA. CAMPA/ Mineral cess funds may also be utilized for this purpose.

21.3 DPRs for upgradation of MDRs and Through Routes will make provision for
optical fiber cable access.

21.4 Works will be packaged so as to attract competent contractors with modern

machinery and equipment, capable of nurturing small contractors

21.5 The Ministry of Rural Development may, from time to time, issue such
directions as may be necessary for smooth implementation of the Programme.

22. CONVERGENCE

22.1 Rural connectivity is not an end in itself. It is a means. It is expected

that the connectivity will improve indicators of education, health, rural incomes
etc., provided as a follow up, and in consultation with the local Panchayati Raj
Institutions, convergence is achieved with other ongoing Programmes in these
sectors. It is expected that the District Panchayat will focus on these issues. Before
the start of work on Rural Roads, the bench mark development indicators may be
measured and attached to the detailed project report.

47
22.2 The NRRDA would provide 100% assistance for independent Studies to
establish the impact of the rural connectivity in a District from time to time.

*******

48
 IDENTIFICATION OF GROWTH CENTRES AND RURAL HUBS

Growth centres are habitations which have a high population, high level of
educational facilities, good health service facilities, good agricultural produce
markets (mandis), are well served by buses, railways, are already electrified,
have retail shops selling agricultural inputs and items of daily consumption and
postal facilities etc.

A system of making shall be developed giving weightage as under:

WEIGHTAGE

Parameter Category Sub-category

weight/s
Weight

A. POPULATION (as per 2011 Census) 50

A score of 1 for each 150 population subject to 50

a maximum of 50

B. EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES 10

(Score of the highest category)

Primary School 2

Middle School 3

High School 5

Pre-University Course(PUC),/ 7

10+2 institute

ITI 8

Degree College 10

49
C. MEDICAL FACILITIES 7

(Score of the highest category)

Sub Centre / ANM Centre 2

Primary Health Centre (PHC) 4

Community Health Centre 7

(CHC) / Bedded Hospital (and referral for PHC

patients)

D. VETERINARY FACILITIES 3

Veterinary Hospital 3

E. TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATION 15

INFRASTRUCTURE

Railway Station 4

Bus Stand 3

Notified Tourist Centres 2

Post- Telegraph Office, PCO/ 2

Bank/ Regional Rural Banks

One diesel / petrol authorized

Outlet 1

Additional Authorized Diesel 1

Outlet 1 1

Electric Sub Station 11 KVA 1

50
 2

Electric Sub Station above 11 1

KVA 1

F. MARKET FACILITIES (Cumulative Score) 12

Mandi (based on Turn Over) 7

Ware house/ cold storage 3

Retail shops selling 2

agricultural inputs and items of daily

consumption

G. ADMINISTRATIVE CENTRES 3

(Score of the Highest Category)

Panchayat HQ 1

Sub Tehsil 2

Tehsil/ Block headquarter 3

100 100

For PMGSY II, the following criteria for prioritisation can be adopted.

Priority Marks Scored

I >80

II 70-80

III 60-70

IV Below 60
51
 Note:- 1. A Growth Centre is one which has one Through Route passing through it (or
terminating there). A Rural Hub is a Growth Centre which is simultaneously on two
Through Routes.

2. A road can be proposed to pass through an urban point or a point on

NH/SH/MDR, but scores of point/s so located should not be added, through the entire
length of such candidate road would be used while determining Unit Value per unit
length.
3. For more than one line passing through an eligible point, Growth scores of the
point can be added to compute score of each line.
4. For such mining centres/ Industrial hubs that sign an MoU with SRRDA for
maintenance, upto a score not exceeding 5 can be given within the matrix.
5. A State which has Special Areas (being a Special Category state, or areas like
as identified under DDP, or falling in Schedule V Tribal areas, or IAP districts; can
have two matrices one as above and one for the special areas. The second matrix can
have different uniform weights for sub-categories, without changing total weight of any
category, and in it the population unit score can be uniformly linked to any number
ranging between 100 to 150.

A.

52