JJM file under consideration at the J&K Mission Directorate; nearly seven years spent moving through reports and official procedures, repeated demands for similar reports raise questions
Shakeel Azad
The 21st century is widely described as an era of digital transformation, faster communication, transparency and good governance. Governments across the country are increasingly seeking to move administrative systems away from cumbersome paperwork towards e-Office, digital file processing and faster decision-making. In such an environment, if a file concerning an official payment continues to move from one office to another and from one level to another for nearly seven years, the situation naturally raises questions not only for the party awaiting payment but also about the pace, transparency and accountability of the administrative system.
The matter concerns a payment file related to Information, Education and Communication (IEC) activities under the Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM). According to the concerned party, the file has been passing through different stages of official processing for nearly seven years and is presently under consideration at the Jammu & Kashmir Jal Jeevan Mission Directorate. During this period, the file has reportedly moved repeatedly between the Mission Directorate and subordinate offices, while reports and clarifications concerning the same matter have allegedly been sought on more than one occasion.
Seeking a report can, of course, be a normal part of administrative procedure, particularly where facts, financial records or technical clarifications are required. However, questions naturally arise when a matter remains under consideration for years while reports of a similar nature continue to be sought. In such circumstances, it becomes important to establish whether earlier reports were found deficient, what specific shortcomings were identified, when those shortcomings were communicated to the concerned office, and, if the required information was already available, why another comprehensive report was considered necessary.
One significant aspect of the matter is the reported examination of the file at the senior-most level of the department. According to the information available, when the file reached the higher level, the matter was examined within two to three days. The senior authority reportedly sought the views of two or three concerned officers and thereafter returned the file to the appropriate level for further necessary action.
However, according to the concerned party, the same file was again forwarded nearly one-and-a-half months ago with directions to furnish a comprehensive report. This development has further strengthened the question as to why a matter that could reportedly be examined at a higher level within a few days has remained caught in administrative movement for nearly seven years without reaching a final conclusion.
The concerned party maintains that reports and clarifications relating to the matter have been furnished repeatedly at different stages. If this position is borne out by the official record, the issue goes beyond a single payment file and raises broader questions regarding the timely disposal of government cases, assignment of responsibility and administrative oversight.
At a time when digital governance and good governance are being emphasised as important components of administrative reform across the country, the continued movement of a file for nearly seven years deserves serious attention. The very purpose of digital systems is to make the movement of files traceable, ensure that action taken at every level remains on record, identify the reasons for delays and facilitate timely decisions.
The question, therefore, is simple: when government functioning is increasingly being digitised and good governance is being presented as an administrative priority, why should a file that is nearly seven years old continue to face one procedural hurdle after another? Is there a gap somewhere in the system where files lose momentum before a decision is taken? Or does every level of scrutiny inadvertently create another stage in an already prolonged process?
These questions are being raised not to target any individual officer or institution, but to seek greater clarity and improvement in the system of governance and public administration.
It is equally important to make it clear that the purpose of this report is neither to malign any officer nor to make unsubstantiated allegations. Responsible journalism requires that facts, records and the versions of all concerned parties be considered before reaching any conclusion. Any allegations concerning the role of an officer must therefore be independently verified and should not be treated as established facts without documentary evidence. The version of the concerned officer and the department would also be essential for a fair and balanced assessment.
At the same time, an important question remains: Does public office represent authority alone, or does it also carry responsibility and accountability? Government officers and officials are part of the public service delivery system. A file placed before them is not merely a piece of paper or a digital record; behind it may lie the financial interests, hard work and legitimate expectations of an individual, an institution or a service provider.
When a legitimate payment remains unresolved for years, the consequences may extend beyond the file itself, affecting the financial position, professional commitments and peace of mind of the party concerned.
The seven-year-old file also points towards another uncomfortable question. How many such stories may exist within government offices and administrative systems—stories that have been forced to fade away amid years of delay, uncertainty, anxiety and silent suffering? How many people may have approached offices repeatedly in the hope that their matter would finally be resolved, only to find their file entering yet another cycle of reports, clarifications and procedural correspondence?
Behind every file number there may be someone’s labour, investment, expectation or economic necessity. For this reason, the difficulties faced by those waiting for a legitimate decision for years should not be viewed merely as a routine administrative matter.
This is also where the role of a journalist, writer or social worker becomes significant. When a matter concerning public interest remains unresolved for an unusually long period and accountability appears to require greater attention, raising questions, drawing the concerned authorities’ attention to the issue and reminding public functionaries of their responsibilities can form an important part of social oversight.
The purpose should not be confrontation or personal criticism, but accountability, transparency and institutional improvement.
In this context, several basic questions merit the attention of the competent authorities: Were the reports submitted earlier found inadequate? If so, what specific deficiencies were identified? Why was similar information sought repeatedly? What action was taken after the matter was examined at the higher level? What is the present status of the file after the direction issued nearly one-and-a-half months ago for a comprehensive report? Through which offices and officers has the file moved during this period, and how long did it remain at each level?
Answers to these questions are more important than placing blame on any individual. A complete examination of the file movement and the relevant noting sheets could establish where the delay occurred, what caused it, whether additional documentation was genuinely required, whether earlier reports contained deficiencies, and whether any delay resulted from genuine administrative requirements or avoidable procedural complications.
The competent authorities may therefore consider conducting a transparent and time-bound review of the complete file. The file movement, noting sheets, reports submitted earlier, directions issued at different levels, the action taken following the senior-level examination and the latest direction seeking a comprehensive report could be examined together to establish the complete sequence of events.
If avoidable administrative delay is established at any level, responsibility may be determined in accordance with the applicable rules. Conversely, if there is a genuine legal, financial or technical impediment, the concerned party should be clearly informed of the same.
Good governance is not merely about digital portals, e-Office or online file processing. At its core, good governance means timely decisions, transparent procedures, clearly defined responsibility, effective accountability and a system in which legitimate matters do not remain pending without a clear reason.
If a file remains in circulation for seven years, there must at least be a transparent explanation for the delay and a clear path towards its final disposal.
The central question therefore remains: If a nearly seven-year-old JJM-IEC payment file could reportedly be examined at the higher level within two or three days, why did the same matter continue to move between offices for years? If another report was required, why was it not sought comprehensively at an earlier stage? If the required report had already been submitted, why was it sought again? And if all necessary requirements have been fulfilled, when will the final decision be taken?
These questions are not intended to target any particular officer or department. They are being raised in the interest of good governance, transparency and accountability. Government institutions exist to serve the public, and a legitimate matter should not become trapped in an endless cycle of administrative movement.
What is required now is that the file be examined on its merits and in accordance with the applicable rules and records, brought to its logical conclusion within a reasonable timeframe, and that responsibility be determined wherever avoidable administrative delay is established.
Because a pending file is never merely a file. Behind it may lie someone’s legitimate right, someone’s hard work, someone’s investment, someone’s hope—and sometimes years of waiting for justice and closure.
