1.2 Basic Information: (Year )

Transcription

1 Part-A : General Information 1.1 Introduction: UT Dadra and Nagar Haveli, is implementing Mid-Day Meal in schools through the District Panchayat Dadra and Nagar Haveli since 15 th August,1995 with supply of food grains and Hot cooked meals from 24 th February,2002 in Dadra and Nagar Haveli District. 1.2 Basic Information: (Year ) S. No. INDICATORS STATUS 1. No. of Institutions PRY U PRY* TOTAL i) Approved by MDM-PAB for ii) Covered during the year No. of Children i) Approved by MDM-PAB ,688 Ii) Enrollment as on ii) Average No. of children availed MDM during to Quarterly Progress Report (QPR) i) Average no. of children availed MDM as per QPR-1 26,227 [106%] [106%] 9580 [96%] 9830 [98%] ii) Average no. of children availed MDM as per QPR [105%] 8944 [89%] iii) Average no. of children availed 26, MDM as per QPR-3 [106%] [105%] *:-% of PAB Approved 2. No. of Working days PRY U PRY (220 days for PY & U PY approved by PAB for FY ) i) Approved for First 3 Quarters Achievement during first Quarters [91%] [104%] [100%] 36,768 [106%] 1

2 3. Financial Status PRY U PRY AVERAGE UNIT COOKING COST PCPD i) State s contributions in cooking cost per child per day ii) Budget Provision for cooking cost for the year Rs Cr (Central and State ) 4. QPR Status Status i) 1 st Quarter Received (Late) ii) 2 nd Quarter Received (Late) iii) 3 rd Quarter Received (Late) --ooo 2

3 Part-B : Review of Performance in ( to ) 2. Based on the information provided by the State Govt. in its AWP&B , the performance during ( to ) was reviewed. The major issues in implementation during are summarized as under: COVERAGE (Institutions) Coverage in terms of No. of institutions. Difference between PAB Approval (Target) Vs No. of institutions covered (Achievement) i) PRIMARY The number of institutions approved by MDM PAB for = 281 Number of institutions covered during TO = 196 (70%) ii) UPPER PRIMARY (including PY attached) The number of institutions approved by MDM PAB for = 79 Number of institutions covered during TO = 86 (109%) 2.1 COVERAGE (No. of Children) Coverage in terms of No. of children. Difference between PAB Approval (Target) Vs Average No. of Children Availed MDM during to (Achievement) PRIMARY (Refer Table 2.3 of the Analysis Sheet). The number of children approved by MDM PAB for = Average number of children availed MDM during TO = (106%) Coverage in terms of No. of children. Difference between PAB Approval (Target) Vs Average No. of Children Availed MDM during to (Achievement) UPPER PRIMARY (Refer Table 2.4 of the Analysis Sheet). The number of children approved by MDM PAB for = Average number of children availed MDM during to = 9580 (96%) No. of Meals: Difference between No. of meal to be served (Target) Vs. No. of meals served (Achievement)- PY+U PY (Refer Table 2.5 of the Analysis Sheet). The number of meals to be served during TO = Lakhs The number of meals served during TO = Lakhs (98%) 2.2 FOODGRAINS (PRIMARY + UPPER PRIMARY) Level of Opening balance as on : The UT had nil opening balance of food grains against the total allocation for as on (Refer Table of the Analysis Sheet). 3

4 2.2.2 Level of unspent balance as on : The UT had nil closing balance as on against the total allocation of food grains for (Refer Table of the Analysis Sheet) Availability of Food grains: ( to ) Considering that three-fourth of the year was over by , the UT should have availability of at least 85% of the food grains allocation. UT level availability as on was only 69%. (Table Refer 3.5 of the Analysis sheet) Utilization of food grains: Considering that three-fourth of the year was over by , the State should have utilized 75% of the food grains allocation. The UT has utilized all the 69% available food grains as on (Refer Table 3.7 Analysis Sheet) The UT administration is requested to explain the reasons for low availability of food grains Payment of cost of foodgrains to FCI: The FCI has submitted bills for Rs Lakhs crore during to The State has made whole payment for Rs lakhs to the FCI. 2.3 COOKING COST (PRIMARY + UPPER PRIMARY) Level of Opening balance as on : The State had nil opening balance of cooking cost against the total allocation for as on (Refer Table of the Analysis Sheet) Level of closing balance as on : The State had nil opening balance of cooking cost against the total allocation for as on (Refer Table of the Analysis Sheet) Availability of cooking cost : ( to ) Considering that three-fourth of the year was over by , the UT should have availability of at least 85% of the cooking cost allocation. UT level availability as on was 101%. (Table Refer 5.5 of the Analysis sheet) Utilization of Cooking cost Considering that three-fourth of the year is over by , the districts should have utilized at least 75% of the allocation of cooking cost. State level utilization is 70%. (Ref: Table no. 5.7 of Analysis Sheet) 2.4 Reconciliation of utilisation and performance during ( to ) Mismatch in utilization of Food grains vis-à-vis cooking cost: Ideally the percentage utilization of cooking costs and foodgrains should tally with each other. State level utilization is as under: Food grains Cooking cost Mis-match Primary+ Upper Primary (against 75%) 69% 70% 1 pp 4

5 2.6 Cook-Cum-Helper (PRIMARY + UPPER PRIMARY): MDM-PAB has approved 535 Cook cum helper to be engaged during in the State, however the State has engaged only 497 cook cum helper. 75% of the allocated amount has been paid as honorarium to cook cum helper. 2.5 Utilization of MME (Reference Table 6.3 of Analysis Sheet) A sum of Rs lakhs was available during first three quarters of as Central Assistance towards MME. The UT administration has not at all utilized the MME grant during the period of to ooo 5

6 3.4. MDM-PAB decisions No Details No. of Institutions as per State Plan (Table 3, 3A and 3B) 1 No. of Children & Institutions Primary 1.1 Govt. + Govt. aided + LB schools 1.2 EGS 1.3 AIE 1.4 Mad/Maq 1.5 NCLP No. of Children as per State Plan (Table No.13 /13-A) Recommendations by Appraisal Team (No. of Children) TOTAL (A) Approval by MDM- PAB 1.6 Govt. + Govt. aided + LB schools 1.7 EGS 1.8 AIE 1.9 Mad/Maq/NCLP TOTAL (B) GRAND TOTAL (A) +(B) No. of Working days 2.1 Primary Upper Primary No. of Cooks-cum Helpers* Kitchen-cum-store Total Total Institutions Sanctioned till (PY+UPY) Const. through convg. Gap State s Proposal for Recommendatio ns by Appraisal Team Approval by MDM-PAB

7 DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI QUANTIFICATION OF CENTRAL ASSISTANCE FOR A. Food grains: No. Stage Approved by PAB-MDM Quantity in No. of Children No. of Working days MTs. 1 Primary (@ 100 gms) Upper Primary (@ gms.) TOTAL B. Cost of Foodgrains, Cooking cost, MME and Transport Assistance Sl. No. Component/norm I. Primary 1 Cost of 5650/- per MT for MT rice Cooking Cost (i) Central Share - Cooking Rs.2.17 per child per day (26227 x 212 days x Rs. 2.17) Amount admissible (Rs. In lakhs) (ii) State Share - Cooking Rs per child per day (26227 x 212 days x Rs. 0.72) Transportation Rs. 750 per MT Honorarium to cook-cum-helpers Central Share - (480 x Rs.750 x 10 months) (i) 36 Minimum State Share - (480 x Rs.250 x 10 months) (ii) 12 Management Monitoring and Evaluation (MME) 1.8% of cost of foodgrains, cooking cost, cost of transportation and 5 honorarium to cook-cum-helpers 3.46 TOTAL(1+2(i) +3+4(i)+5) II. Upper Primary Cost of 5650/- per MT for MT rice Cooking Cost Central Share - Cooking Rs per child per day (i) (9580 x 220 days x Rs. 3.25) (ii) 3 Minimum State Share - Cooking Rs per child per day (9580 x 220 days x Rs. 1.08) Transportation Rs. 750 per MT

8 4 (i) (ii) Honorarium to cook-cum-helpers Central Share - (42 x Rs.750 x10 months) Minimum State Share - (42 x Rs.250 x10 months) Management Monitoring and Evaluation (MME) 1.8% of 5 cost of foodgrains, cooking cost, cost of transportation and honorarium to cook-cum-helpers 1.65 TOTAL(1+2(i) +3+4(i)+5) TOTAL (Primary + U. Primary) ooo 8

9 MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY MID DAY MEAL DIVISION MDM-PAB meeting to consider and approve AWP&B UT: DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (Date of the Meeting: ) INDEX S. No. Chapters Page No. Part-A General Information 1-2 Part-B Review of implementation during to Part-C Recommendations of Appraisal team and quantification of variables for Central Assistance during