The Ministry of Rural Development told the Central Information Commission that eligible migrant labourers cannot be denied pucca houses under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Gramin (PMAY-G) solely because they are temporarily residing outside their native village for employment. The clarification arose during a hearing of a right to information appeal in which an applicant had sought to know whether rural families migrating temporarily for work could be deprived of benefits under PMAY-G and other rural welfare schemes. The ministry presented its position to the commission and outlined the basis for eligibility.

The ministry informed the commission that there is no specific order, circular or rule issued by the Ministry of Rural Development to the effect that a family shall be denied benefits under PMAY-G on grounds of temporary residence elsewhere for employment. It stated that eligibility under PMAY-G is determined in accordance with the framework and guidelines issued by the Centre and that the scheme is implemented by state governments. The commission sought clarification on whether any policy exists that denies benefits to eligible beneficiaries because they are staying outside their native place.

The ministry explained that beneficiaries under PMAY-G are identified on the basis of housing deprivation parameters under the Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC) 2011, followed by verification through Gram Sabhas and the prescribed appeal process. Financial assistance is provided to eligible rural households that are homeless or living in kutcha houses, subject to scheme guidelines. The ministry indicated that verification and local processes determine inclusion and that temporary migration for work is not a standalone disqualifier.

The Central Information Commission directed the Ministry of Rural Development and the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation to provide a revised point-wise reply to the appellant incorporating available factual information, specific website links and copies of relevant policies and rules. An information commissioner noted that respondents had explained the factual position regarding the issues raised in the application. The commission’s direction aims to ensure the appellant receives clear documentary references and a comprehensive response.