Calcutta, Dec. 21: Bengal could provide each rural household only 25 days of work on an average in the 2007-08 financial year against a target of 100 days, a report prepared by the panchayat and rural development department says.

Officials put the blame for the miserable performance on a slew of factors, from rain and floods to the rural poor’s alleged unwillingness to work hard.

The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act assures every rural household at least 100 days’ work in a year.

The work to be provided ranges from digging of ponds and canals and construction of roads to jobs relating to rural connectivity, flood control and irrigation.

People working under the scheme are paid Rs 75 a day.

Asked about the state’s inability to reach the target, panchayat secretary M.N. Roy told The Telegraph it was mainly because of “forced stoppage of work” during the rainy season, floods or harvesting.

“Not many people reported for work when agricultural activity was in full swing. Moreover, floods have been a recurring problem in our state, forcing us to put pond or canal excavation on hold. That’s why we could not offer more than an average of 25 days’ work.”

He also put the blame on “problems in timely receipt of funds from the Centre to pay wages”.

Some of the poorest areas figure among the places where the state government could not ensure even 25 days’ work in the last financial year. They are West Midnapore, East Midnapore, Nadia, Cooch Behar, South Dinajpur, North Dinajpur, South 24-Parganas, Malda, Murshidabad and the Siliguri Mahakuma Parishad.

Places where 25 to 30 days’ work was provided are Birbhum, Purulia, Jalpaiguri, Burdwan, Hooghly and the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council area.

Another reason cited in the report for the poor performance is that “many people did not know manual work had to be done and opted out after working for some time’’.

Asked about this, the panchayat secretary said: “Des- pite our efforts to make people aware of the national rural employment guarantee schemes through awareness campaigns, there were people who joined work but decided not to continue because of the rigorous physical activity the job entailed. Had this not happened, the average figure would have been higher.”

An official in the panchayat department, however, rubbished the explanation, saying: “At the time of registering households under this act, prospective workers are told that they would have to do manual work as that is the essential element of the scheme. So, the question of not reporting for work after realising that it involves physical labour cannot arise. It cannot justify the state’s inability to provide jobs for more days.”

After the Centre had framed the law, the Left had claimed credit, saying its “policy intervention” had resulted in it. The outcome, however, should leave its leaders embarrassed.

The panchayat secretary said: “We expect to improve our performance in the ongoing fiscal that ends in March next year.”