Sub: Reply to the Instructions contained in the Minutes of the Meeting chaired by DAI

(Rlys) on 18.12.2023
In reference to above the following issues had been desired to be attended -
"(i) Presence of the Annual plan for inspection of bridges,
(ii) and corresponding allotment and utilisation of funds. Funds are mainly asked for ongoing
and new works,
(iii) In case fund received is less, the impact is more on new works as liability of old works
needs to be cleared first. &
(iv) Co-relation between the works executed and left out because of less allotment of funds may
be highlighted”
Hence, it is stated that as per the information received from the office of Dy. CE/BD-II/
HQ/NR/BH/NDLS it is stated that -
‘In terms of Para 117 of IRBM, during prescribed months prior to monsoon, Permanent Way
Inspector or Inspector of works inspects every bridge including ROB/RUB every year. The same
is being monitored at Head Quarter Level through IRBMS and As per Para 102 (a) of IRBM,
The Assistant Engineer inspect every Bridge including Road over/under Bridges once a year by a
date specified by Chief Engineer after monsoon. The same is being monitored at Head Quarter
Level through IRBMS.
Regarding Funds for maintenance of Bridges that has been planned, the position of the planned
and executed bridge works during the year 2018-19 to 2022-23 are as under :-

No of Bridge Works No of Bridge

Sl. Expenditure planned to be Works actually Shortage/Reason
Year
No. in Crores executed executed for this shortage
Old New Total Old New Total
1 2018-19 49.38 48 37 85 53 43 96 Nil
2 2019-20 36.32 55 60 115 66 65 131 Nil
3 2020-21 50.48 20 30 50 28 36 64 Nil
4 2021-22 55.43 84 40 124 97 30 127 Nil
5 2022-23 80.3 125 75 200 127 78 205 Nil

Further it is stated that, though it is correct, that the funds are mainly asked for ongoing
and new works and in some cases the fund received had been less and the new works could not
be initiated, as liability of old works needs to be cleared first. The issue regarding co-relation
between the works executed and left out because of less allotment of funds have been examined
at the zonal level and following observations follow : -
1. As per the practice followed in NR, ADEN / AXEN (Br. Line), after discussion with SSEs
under their jurisdiction, finalises the list of new bridge works to be taken up and sends the
offline proposal to concerned DEN/ Dy. CE (Br. Line) and then approval/rejection of new
works takes place in IRPSM as per Delegation of Powers with duly recorded reasons. However,
reasons for acceptance/rejection of new works at the level of ADEN /AXEN (Br. Line) and
DEN/ Dy. CE (Br. Line) i.e., basis of prioritisation of new work is not available on
record. (Captured in Para 9.2.1)
2. Works are categorised as ‘Pink Book Items’ i.e. work valued ₹ 2.50 crore & above and Law
Book item i.e. work valued less than ₹ 2.50 crore. Once the new works are approved/prioritised
as stated in Para 9.2.1 above, amount requires against a particular new work as well as ongoing
work in a year is assessed and demand sent to Railway Board. Demand for Pink Book items
are sent individual work wise, and budget also received accordingly. However, demand for Law
Book items is sent consolidated value wise. Budget grant can always be equal to or less
than the demand. On receipt of budget grant against Law book items, Zonal Hqrs. re-allocate the
same to Divisions/Bridge Organisation and DEN/Dy CE (Br. Line) further prioritise the
execution of work as per availability of fund. (Captured in Para 9.2.2)
3. The desired, analysis has been made to co-relate the works executed and left out due to less
allotment of fund vide the desired Appendix-2 (as per the attachment). It was observed that
during the period of review in case of the selected bridge works, against an overall demand of
61% of the funds for execution of these works, about 49% of it was allotted and expenditure
out of this allotment was to the the extent of 83%. The division-wise position is as under –
a. On detailed scrutiny of fund demanded vis a vis allocated and expended in respect of 7
selected works in Delhi Division, it was observed that in none of the works, there was delayed
sanction of funds i.e. beyond their date of completion.
However, in one case, against a demand of 0.08% funds, very large amount of fund had been
allotted, of which the expenditure has been about 219%, yet the work is still in progress. In
another case, against a demand of about less than 1% of the funds, about 300% of the demand
has been allotted, of which the expenditure has been about 61%, and the work is still in
Progress.
It was in only once case that no expenditure has been done, though there was a demand for
about 40% of the funds and about 187% of it had been allotted but the GAD plan for the bridge
work could not be finalised.
There was no case in which there was demand for funds and allotment done yet no
expenditure could be done within the scheduled completion period.
For the total selected 7 works, against the sanctioned cost of ₹ 57.38 crore, a total of ₹ 25.06
crore budget was demanded. Against the budget demand, fund provided was only ₹ 17.92 crore
and the fund spent was ₹ 6.11 crore.
b. On detailed scrutiny of fund demanded vis a vis allocated and expended in respect of 4 out of
6 selected works in Ambala Division, it was observed that in none of the works, there was
delayed sanction of funds i.e. beyond their date of completion.
However, in one case, against a demand for 49% of the funds, about 121%% of it was allotted
and there has been an expenditure of about 53% and the work got completed on 31.07.2021.
There was no case in which there was demand for funds and allotment done yet no
expenditure could be done within the scheduled completion period.
For the 4 out of 6 selected works, against the sanctioned cost of ₹ 11.34 crore, a total of ₹
5.72 crore budget was demanded. Against the budget demand, fund provided was only ₹ 5.23
crore and the fund spent was ₹ 5.37 crore.
c. On detailed scrutiny of fund demanded vis a vis allocated and expended in respect of 8 out of
11 selected works in FZR Division made available to Audit, it was observed that in none of the
works, there was delayed sanction of funds i.e. beyond their date of completion.
However, in one case, against a demand of 1% funds, very large amount of fund had been
allotted, and there was no expenditure and the work is still in progress by 20%. In another case,
against 101% demand of funds, only 4% of it was allotted and there has been no expenditure as
the work has been kept on hold as rebuilding of bridge is proposed.
In a case pertaining to Strengthening work of bridge No. 32 on PTK –JDNX Section, it was
found that the work deleted got deleted in Janurary 2021. The, Bridge No. 32 was washed away
on 20.08.22 due to cloud burst & flash of flood in the Chakki River. Construction work for this
bridge is beyond the capacity of FZR Division. Now, construction work has been handed over to
Construction Organisation/NR.
There was no case in which there was demand for funds and allotment done yet no
expenditure could be done within the scheduled completion period. For the total 8 out of 11
selected works, against the sanctioned cost of ₹ 44.99 crore, a total of ₹ 38.55 crore budget was
demanded. Against the budget demand, fund provided was only ₹ 10.99 crore and the fund spent
was ₹ 16.75 crore.
d. It was also observed that there were cases where work was sanctioned but enough fund not
demanded. Though fund demanded, but adequate fund was not provided and even provided fund
could not be spent which resulted in delay in completion of work. It indicates that due priority
was not given by either Zonal Railways or Railway Board in seeking /providing /expending fund
on this important safety related bridge works leading to delay in completion. (Captured in Para
9.3.3).
*********