Aug 6, 2017 - Madhya Pradesh (8.54%), Haryana (8.30%), Maharashtra (7.71%) and Tamil ...... Punjab State Industrial Deve
A
WHITE PAPER on
STATE FINANCES June 2017
GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
WHITE PAPER State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
CONTENTS Chapter No.
Name
Page No.
1
Executive Summary
1
2
Why a White Paper?
7
3
State Finances
19
4
Liability of Cash Credit Limit for Food Grains
59
5
Financial burden on account of UDAY Scheme
75
6
Public Sector Undertakings
81
7
Off Budget Funds
95
8
Annexures (I – XXII)
9
Abbreviations
10
Definitions
11
References
WHITE PAPER State Finances
LIST OF STATEMENTS Number Name
Chapter Name
Chapter Page No. No. 1 11
1.1
Outstanding Liabilities
Why a White Paper?
1.2
Loans raised by State Entities
Why a White Paper?
1
12
1.3
Outstanding Debt as on 31.03.2017
Why a White Paper?
1
15
1.4
True Financial Position -2016-17
Why a White Paper?
1
15
1.5
Important fiscal metrics
Why a White Paper?
1
17
WHITE PAPER State Finances
LIST OF TABLES Number Name
Chapter Name
Chapter Page No. No. 2 27
1
Pending liabilities of Atta Dal Scheme
State Finance
2
Unpaid Liabilities of State
State Finance
2
29
3
Composition of Revenue Receipts
State Finance
2
32
4
Share of Central Transfers
State Finance
2
34
5
Total Revenue Receipts
State Finance
2
35
6
Salaries, Pension and Interest Payments
State Finance
2
40
7
Share of Revenue and Capital Expenditure
State Finance
2
43
8
Trends in Revenue Deficit
State Finance
2
45
9
Trends in Fiscal Deficit
State Finance
2
46
10
Outstanding Debt to Total Revenue Receipts
State Finance
2
48
11
Outstanding Debt and Expenditure on Debt Servicing
State Finance
2
48
12
Borrowings from Agencies (2016-17)
State Finance
2
50
13
Government Guarantees
State Finance
2
53
WHITE PAPER State Finances
Number Name
Chapter Name
Chapter Page No. No. 2 54
14
Total Debt as on 31st March 2017
State Finance
15
Revenue Receipt - Actual v/s Budgeted
State Finance
2
55
16
Capital Expenditure- Actual v/s Budgeted
State Finance
2
56
17
Plan Outlay - Actual v/s Budgeted
State Finance
2
56
18
Terms of Agreement of CCL
3
70
19
PSPCL debt and transfer to PSPCL
4
78
20
Receipts and Expenditure of Boards/Funds/ - 2014-15 to 2016-17
Liability Of Cash Credit Limit For Food Grains Financial Burden On Account Of Uday Scheme Off Budget Funds
6
98
21
Receipts and Expenditure of Societies - 2016-17
Off Budget Funds
6
98
22
Receipts and expenditure of Societies for 2014-15 to 2016-17
Off Budget Funds
6
99
23
Income & Expenditure of PIDB
Off Budget Funds
6
101
24
Detail of debt raised by PIDB
Off Budget Funds
6
101
25
Expenditure detail of Punjab Mandi Board
Off Budget Funds
6
105
WHITE PAPER State Finances
LIST OF FIGURES Numb er
Name
Chapter No.
Page No.
1
GSDP Growth Rate
2
21
2
Balance in Current Revenues
2
23
3
Components of State's Total Revenue Receipts - Punjab (2016-17)
2
30
4
Composition of Revenue Receipts (% to Total Revenue Receipts)
2
31
5
Own Tax Revenue Receipts (2016-17)
2
33
6
Components of Expenditure (2006-07)
2
37
7
Components of Expenditure (2016-17)
2
37
8
Components of Revenue Expenditure
2
38
9
Total Revenue Expenditure (2006-07)
2
41
10
Total Revenue Expenditure (2016-17)
2
41
11
Revenue Deficit as % of GSDP
2
42
12
Fiscal Deficit as % of GSDP
2
46
WHITE PAPER State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The new Government assumed office on 16th March 2017. On 29th March 2017, RBI shutdown the State treasury owing to the breach in the limits set by RBI. As on 31st March 2017 bills amounting to `7791 crore were pending and ultimately lapsed as the treasury was left with no money. 2. To meet the expenditure in implementing the Atta Dal Scheme, funds were arranged by the State Procuring Agencies (SPAs) at their own level by diverting funds from CCL provided for procurement of wheat and paddy. The unpaid liabilities of `1747 crore are still outstanding as on 31st March 2017. 3. The arrears of `2773 crore of DA for almost last 2 years have not been paid to the employees and payments have simply been kept in abeyance. 4. `2342 crore were pending as arrears of payment that the State Government has to make on account of power subsidy to the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. 5. The immediate commitment that the State government had to discharge including unpaid bills in the treasury when the new Government assumed office, was to the tune of `13039 crore. 6. When the new Government took over, it was welcomed with the additional liability of `29919.96 crore (as on 31st March 2017) in the form of loans to settle the so called CCL (Cash Credit Limit) legacy accounts. As a result the State Government shall have to bear an additional `270 crore per month and an annual liability of `3240 crore. 7. The previous Government had been forcing agencies like PIDB, RDB, PUDA and others to incur debt on its behalf. A part of this debt has also flown into the State treasury in what is called as 'informal debt', which stands at `4435 crore. 8. During the last 10 years, the growth rate of the State remained lower than the All India average except for the year 2013-14 in which the growth was slightly higher i.e. by meagre 0.23%, than the All India average. The growth rate was as low as 4.20% against 7.5% of All India level in the year 2014-15. Page | 1
Executive Summary
WHITE PAPER State Finances
9. The average GSDP growth recorded by the State during the period from 200607 to 2015-16 has been at 6.37% which is lower than the average growth recorded by the States like Goa (10.68%), Bihar (10.08%), Gujarat (9.70%), Madhya Pradesh (8.54%), Haryana (8.30%), Maharashtra (7.71%) and Tamil Nadu(7.66%). 10. The State continued to hold the top position in Per Capita Income across the country for a long time, it has now lost the race to the States like Haryana and Maharashtra. The State rank has slid from the top to the seventh position amongst the major States. States like Maharashtra, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Gujarat and even Himachal Pradesh are now ahead of Punjab. 11. Each year, before the Annual Budget is presented, an estimate of the Balance in Current Revenues (BCR) is made. The State has been persistently running huge negative BCR starting with (-) `3656 crore in 2007-08, (-) `5757 crore in 200910 which increased to (-) `6544 crore in 2014-2015, (-) `6138 crore in 2015-16 and was (-) `4488 crore in 2016-17. 12. State’s own revenues as a share of total revenue have declined from 77.34% in 2006-07 to 68.50% in 2016-17. As against this in the corresponding period, the share of Central taxes has gone up from 22.66% to 31.50%. This indicates a perceptible decline in the State’s ability to raise resources internally during the last 10 years, 2007-2017. HUGE AMOUNT OF OUTSTANDING LIABILITIES 13. The share of central taxes in total receipts have increased from 9.32 % (2006-07) to 21.14 % (2016-17) the State’sbills increasing dependence 1.4 indicating Apart from pending amounting to about upon `7791Central crore, transfers and devolution during the 10 that lapsed onyear theperiod. 31st March, 2017, the previous 14. The transfer of Grants-in-Aid from Centre has decreased from 13.33% in 2006Government left behind outstanding liabilities amounting 07 to 10.36% in 2016-17. The primary for expenditure this is the lack of the State to `13039 crore, byreason deferring on various counts, release its part of the share central schemes. As a 1.1. result, the State has been whichinare shown in Statement unable to fully leverage the Grants-in-aid from the Central Government. 15. In 2016-17, 85% of total Revenue Receipts were incurred on salaries, interest payments and pensions. If we add the power subsidy, this together accounts for 102% of the Revenue Receipts of the State. 16. The average salary of the Punjab Government employees is much higher as compared to the other States and even the Government of India. Page | 2
Executive Summary
WHITE PAPER State Finances
17. Revenue Expenditure has increased from `18544 crore (87.76% of total expenditure) in 2006-07 to `52018 crore (92.18% of total expenditure) in 201617. 18. During the same period, expenditure on Salaries rose from `5783 crore to `19758 crore (an increase of 242%), on Pensions from `1905 crore to `8749 crore (an increase of 359%) and on Interest from `4152 crore to `10098 crore (an increase of 143%). 19. The share of capital expenditure has declined over the years, from 12.24% in 2006-07 to 7.82% in the year 2016-17. The expenditure had fallen to as low as 4.61% in the year 2011-12 20. Revenue Deficit has hit its worst in the last ten years. In 2006-07 the Revenue Deficit was `1749 crore. However, this Deficit recorded more than two-fold increase in the very first year of the previous government coming into power i.e. 2007-08 at `3823 crore. It has since increased to `8550 crore in 2015-16 and the position is much worse in 2016-17. The State was to achieve a zero revenue deficit from the year 2011-12 onwards. 21. Fiscal deficit of `4384 crore was recorded in the year 2006-07, which has 1.5 It is worth noting that most of these outstanding increased by 168% to `11762 crore in 2015-16. This trend indicates that the liabilities relate to benefits for the scheduled castes and Government spending was being increasingly financed by raising loans. other disadvantaged sections of society, dues of 22. Revenue deficit was at 1.38% of the GSDP at the end of financial year 2006-07, employees, funds received from the Government of it increased 2.18% in the year 2015-16. India and financial institutions for specific projects or 23. The total debt servicing expenditure in 2016-17 was `14145 crore (Principal awards of the Central and State Finance Commissions `4047 crore and Interest Payment `10098 crore). This is likely to increase by in favour of ULBs and PRI's. Not only are these more than 30% in 2017-18 on account of the increased debt liabilities of liabilities going to pre-empt the future budgetary `29919.96 thatevent the previous upon itself in exchange for provisions,crore in the of theirGovernment not being took settled concealing the liabilities on likely food account. quickly, they are also to block the future 24. The State introduced the “Guarantee Redemption Fund Scheme”, with an development of the state. objective to meet its obligations arising out of the Guarantee extended to State level entities and was required to contribute minimum amount of `1241.58 Crore over the period 2013-14 to 2015-16, to cover any unforeseen State Guarantee invocation.
Page | 3
Executive Summary
WHITE PAPER State Finances
However, poor recovery and non-contribution, has put the State fiscal to a great risk. 25. The Government has extended long-term Guarantees to the tune of `20608.17 crore as on 31.03.2017 (the cap is 80% of the total Revenue Receipts of previous year). While the above figures may look healthy indicating a cushion for the State government to provide Guarantees for the debt that its enterprises may raise, the truth is that the Guarantees provided earlier to PSPCL and the food agencies have now been converted into State debt as a result of the UDAY scheme and the loan taken over on account of CCL of food agencies by the State Government. 26. The shortfall between the actual revenue receipts and the budgeted revenue receipts has been `2009 crore in 2010-11, `7562 crore in 2013-14 and `4773 in 2016-17. 27. Similarly, the actual expenditure against the budgeted estimates on plan allocations was 143.80% of the approved outlay in 2006-07 whereas the same has since been decreasing over the subsequent years and in the year 2011-12 this ratio came down to 64.73%. 28. Despite the support of the State Government under the UDAY Scheme to PSPCL, it has been running into losses from its very inception. It suffered losses of `1695 crore during the year 2015-16 and has accumulated losses of `3196 crore as on 31.03.2016. 29. The total amount of outstanding Government loans of PSUs is `17030.92 crore. The outstanding loans of other Institutions were `22593.95 crore, and loans `20608.17 crore was outstanding against Government Guarantee. In case of default, it is the bounden duty of the State Government to repay these loans to the lenders. The State Government received only a small amount of `4.01 crore during the year 2015-16 as dividend on a huge investment of `8234.30 crore in these PSUs and Co-operative Institutions. 30. It has been observed that amongst the Administrative Departments there is an increasing tendency to float Boards, entities/societies such as PIDB, PMB, PLRS, ETTSA etc..
Page | 4
Executive Summary
WHITE PAPER State Finances
These entities retain the revenues generated by various levies, in a separate corpus fund, instead of depositing the same in the Consolidated Fund of the State. These expenditure were neither presented for the sanction of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha and nor were these subject to the audit of CAG. 31. PSWC was constrained to annul the tendering process. Surprisingly, PUNGRAIN without awaiting the report of the subcommittee of the Ministers and without any approval and guarantee for silo capacity utilization from FCI, proceeded ahead with the creation of silo capacity against the Allocation of Business rules. The haphazard creation of silo capacity by PUNGRAIN without any uniform policy and study of existing storage capacities of all agencies may affect present utilization of storage capacities of State Procuring agencies (SPAs) resulting in financial loss to SPAs. 32. It is observed that the decisions of these entities were unplanned, scattered and against the core mandate of the constitution of Boards/societies and also ‘need based assessment’ was found missing. The CAG report has observed this as a violation of Article 266 (1) of the Constitution of India.
Page | 5
Executive Summary
WHITE PAPER State Finances
Page | 6
Chapter 1: Why a White Paper?
WHITE PAPER State Finances
WHY A WHITE PAPER?
Chapter 1
Page | 7
Chapter 1: Why a White Paper?
WHITE PAPER State Finances
Page | 8
Chapter 1: Why a White Paper?
WHITE PAPER State Finances
WHY A WHITE PAPER? Chapter 1
1.0 A White Paper is defined as, "An authoritative report or guide that informs readers concisely about a complex issue and presents the issuing body's philosophy on the matter. It is meant to help readers understand an issue, solve a problem or make a decision". This White Paper is nothing more or nothing less than that. It is a presentation of the most complex The Reserve Bank of India in its letter of 29th March, 2017 States: “…As per the scheme of Ways and Means Advances to State Governments for the year 2016-17, RBI is constrained to suspend the payments to State Government. RBI has accordingly advised its offices and agencies to suspend payments of the State Government with effect from March 29th, 2017…”
problem being faced by the state Government in the simplest possible way.
THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (RBI) SHOCKER 1.1 On assuming office on the 16th March, 2017, after the conclusion of elections to the Punjab Vidhan Sabha, this Government was shocked to learn that the financial position of the state was far worse than even their wildest imagination. While the treasury was virtually lying closed under the weight of bills amounting to about `7791 crore pending clearance , farmers were all set to sell their Rabi crop and the Government was awaiting sanction of the Cash Credit Limit (CCL), came a shocker from the RBI, vide it's letter dated the 29th March, 2017, which reads as follows. "...As per the scheme of Ways and Means Advances (WMA) to State Governments for the year 2016-17, RBI is constrained to suspend the payments to State Government, RBI has accordingly advised its offices and agencies to suspend payments of the state Government with effect from March 29th, 2017..."
Page | 9
Chapter 1: Why a White Paper?
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…in the face of 'smart' accounting
1.2
The fact that the RBI had to resort to the extreme step of suspension of payments to the state Government, perhaps,
practices resorted to
for the first time in its history, speaks volumes about the
by the previous
precarious financial position, the new Government inherited
Government, they
from its predecessor.
reveal the picture, but only partially….”
THE ART OF BOOK-COOKING 1.3
Normally, budget documents and CAG Accounts for the relevant years ought to reflect the true state of State's finances. However, in the face of 'smart' accounting practices resorted to by the previous Government, they reveal the picture, but only partially. The art of book cooking comprises (i) fast-forwarding the receipts; (ii) deferring expenditure; (iii) non-provisioning for contingent liabilities and; (iv) incurring off-budget liabilities. In the process, the integrity of the budgets presented by them becomes deeply suspect, thus blunting the very edge of the Government accountability.
HUGE AMOUNT OF OUTSTANDING LIABILITIES 1.4
Apart from pending bills amounting to about `7791 crore, that lapsed on the 31st March, 2017, the previous Government left behind outstanding liabilities amounting `13039 crore, by deferring expenditure on various counts, which are shown in Statement 1.1.
Page | 10
Chapter 1: Why a White Paper?
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…in the event of
Statement 1.1: Outstanding Liabilities (`Crore) Sr. No 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
12. Total
1.5
Description Arrears of Dearness Allowance Arrears of Power Subsidy Arrears of Atta Dal Scheme Non-release of funds received from the Govt. of India (GoI) Non-payment of pensions Non-payment of Scholarships to the students belonging to SC category Arrears of Shagun Scheme Other Welfare Schemes Non release of funds to the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) under the Central and State Finance Commissions Non release of funds to the Panchayati Raj Institutions under the Central and State Finance Commissions Non-release of specific purpose institutional funds (a) NABARD (b) World Bank Others
Amount 2773 2342 1747 1413 692.04 35.31
their not being settled quickly, they are also likely to block the future development of the state…”
18.61 291.16 253.94 386.03
174 45 2867.91 13039
It is worth noting that most of these outstanding liabilities relate to benefits for the scheduled castes and other disadvantaged sections of society, dues of employees, funds received from the Government of India and financial institutions for specific projects or awards of the Central and State Finance Commissions in favour of ULBs and PRI's. Not only are these liabilities going to pre-empt the future budgetary provisions, in the event of their not being settled quickly, they are also likely to block the future development of the state.
Page | 11
Chapter 1: Why a White Paper?
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…As raising of loans and expending wherefrom was an off budget exercise, it
MORTGAGING THE FUTURE
1.6
Yet another very disturbing feature of the State's fiscal is the previous Governments' penchant for abusing its
totally escaped due
various entities to indiscriminately raised loans by
scrutiny, legislative
mortgaging their future revenues or by hypothecating
approval and CAG
immovable properties at their disposal. The Punjab
audit…”
Infrastructure
Development
Board
(PIDB),
Rural
Development Board (RDB) and the Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA), are prominent among such entities. Details of loans raised by them are set out at Statement 1.2 below. Statement 1.2: Loans raised by State entities (` Crore) Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. Total
Name of Entity PIDB RDB PUDA
Amount of Loan 4722.89 5795.94 2124.93 12643.76
Loan Outstanding 3172.93 2090.40 1413.49 6676.82
Source: Concerned Entities
1.7
Raising loans in this manner is nothing short of selling the family silver to run your kitchen. However, they provided a handy window to fund the populist programs of the then ruling dispensation. As raising of loans and expending wherefrom was an off budget exercise, it totally escaped due scrutiny, legislative approval and CAG audit. Therefore, a special audit would be absolutely necessary to ascertain as to whether the loans so raised have been properly accounted for and their utilization is in accord with the statutory mandate of these entities and is in keeping with the principles of financial propriety and prudence.
Page | 12
Chapter 1: Why a White Paper?
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…The alacrity with
THE DUBIOUS LEGACY ACCOUNTS 1.8
which this was done
Faced with a huge accumulated gap between the outstanding CCL and value of stock of food grains RBI's direction to the funding banks to provide for the mismatch and at the sufferance of being denied the facility of CCL, the state Government decided to
not only provided a convenient cover to the various acts of malfeasance, but the urgency to recover the due amount from
convert a whopping gap of `29919.96 crore (as on
the Government of
31.03.2017) into a clean term loan. It is shocking to
India and the
know that this was done, even without the elementary
opportunity to strike a
precaution of going into the reasons for the emergence
fair bargain with them
of such a huge gap and fixing responsibility of the
and the banks was
concerned officials of the state procurement agencies.
also lost…”
The alacrity with which this was done not only provided a convenient cover to the various acts of malfeasance, but the urgency to recover the due amount from the Government of India and the opportunity to strike a fair bargain with them and the banks was also lost. As a result, the Government of Punjab was burdened with an onerous debt burden with an annual debt-servicing liability of `3240 crore for the next twenty years. The then Government also agreed to square-up any gap between the outstanding CCL and value of stock that might emerge in the future as well. In fact, a budgetary support of `1193.65 has already been provided for this purpose. This is against the cardinal principle of the Centralized Procurement Scheme that the State procurement agencies being agents of the Government of India are neither to make any profit nor to incur any loss
in
the
procurement
operations
and
the
Government of India is expected to reimburse all bona fide cost of procurement incurred by them.
Page | 13
Chapter 1: Why a White Paper?
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“...it is noted that the
This also flies in the face of the repeated claim of the
decision of the then
previous Government that the gap was fully covered by
Government to
receivables from the Government of India.
square-up the gap between the
1.9
Secondly, to draw a parallel between squaring up of
outstanding CCL and
the Food Account in 2004 and what was done on
value of stock was
10.03.2017 (conversion of a whopping gap of
actually given effect
`29919.96 crore into a clean term loan) is rather far-
to on 10.03.2017, just
fetched. As the reasons for the huge gap between the
a day before the
outstanding CCL and value of stocks post 2004 cleanup
Assembly results
are altogether different drawing a parallel between
were scheduled to be
them by dubbing them as a 'Legacy Issue' is nothing
declared…”
more than an attempt at shoving the real issue under the carpet. 1.10
Thirdly, it is noted that the decision of the then Government to square-up the gap between the outstanding CCL and value of stock was actually given effect to on 10.03.2017, just a day before the Assembly results were scheduled to be declared. Prudence demanded that the new Government, which were to assume office after the declaration of result should have been given an opportunity to take their own call in the matter.
THE DEBT TRAP 1.11
The state is already in the tight grip of a debt trap. By Government books, outstanding debt was `148832 crore at the end of 2016-17, In reality however, it is far higher, if deferred liabilities, contingent liabilities and newly acquired liabilities on account of gap in the CCL account and UDAY bonds are reckoned. Statement 1.3 puts this issue in the correct perspective.
Page | 14
Chapter 1: Why a White Paper?
WHITE PAPER State Finances
Statement 1.3: Outstanding Debt as on 31.03.2017 (` Crore) Sr No 1
Description
“...In reality however, it is far higher, if
Amount
deferred liabilities,
Outstanding debt including UDAY bonds 2015-16 and 2016-17 2 Loans from State entities 3 Clean loan to cover CCL gap Total debt 5 Outstanding guarantees Total debt + guarantees
153098
contingent liabilities and newly acquired
4435 29919.96 187452.96 20608.00 208060.96
liabilities on account of gap in the CCL account and UDAY bonds are reckoned…”
Source: (AG Provisional Accounts 2016-17) A. Total Debt as % of GSDP:
44%
B. Total Debt + guarantees as % of GSDP:
49%
C. Debt Service Ratio to TRR:
31.15%*
* This figure is likely to increase sharply in 2017-18 on account of increased additional Debt Servicing of `3240 crore per annum on account of the clean term loan taken for the CCL of food account in March 2017
1.12
From the foregoing analysis, it is evident that the financial position of the State reflected in its various budgetary documents, cannot be taken on its face value. To know the true State of the State Finances, a trueing up exercise, by reckoning
the various
unknowns , is called for which is attempted in Statement 1.4 for the year 2016-17 Statement 1.4 (a): True Financial Position -2016-17 (` Crore) Sr. No.
Item
2016-17 (BE)
2016-17 Shortfall (Provisional /Excess AG Account)
1
Revenue Receipts
50181
45408
- 4773
2
Market Borrowings
12819
13600
781
Source: (State Budget Document and Finance Account of AG Punjab) Source: (AG Provisional Accounts 2016-17)
Page | 15
Chapter 1: Why a White Paper?
WHITE PAPER State Finances
Statement 1.4 (b): True Financial Position -2016-17 (` Crore) Sr. No
Item
1
2
3
4
2016-17 (Provisional A G Account)
Truing Up Position 201617
Revenue Deficit
6611
19650
Revenue Deficit as a % of GSDP
1.55%
4.59%
Fiscal Deficit
18105
65330
Fiscal Deficit as a % of GSDP
4.23%
15.27%
Outstanding Debt
148832
187453
Outstanding Debt as % of GSDP
34.78%
43.81%
Primary Deficit
8007
55232
Primary Deficit as % of GSDP
1.87%
12.91%
“….the Government revenue has not kept pace with the Government expenditure, leading to ballooning revenue and Fiscal Deficits…”
Source: (AG Provisional Accounts 2016-17)
IN A FREE FALL 1.13
Important fiscal metrics, over the last ten years, lead to the inescapable conclusion that the State Finances are in a free fall. These are shown in Statement 1.5.
1.14
A plain reading of these numbers reveals that: the Government revenue has not kept pace with the Government expenditure, leading to ballooning Revenue and Fiscal Deficits A
high
percentage
of
expenditure
discretionary and committed, which
is
non-
hardly
leave
any fiscal space for the new Government.
Page | 16
Chapter 1: Why a White Paper?
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…if no corrective
Revenue Deficit at 54% of Fiscal Deficit results in
measures are taken,
most of the loans raised by the Government being
it will take a heavy toll
used for meeting the committed expenditure or
on the future
repaying the past loans.
development of the
Capital expenditure a meagre 7% of total expenditure
State...”
shows the Government is hardly investing in the future of the State. Outstanding debt at 43.81% of GSDP and Debt Service
Ratio
(DSR)
at
31.15%
is
totally
unsustainable The State's fiscal is inflicted with a deep-rooted structural imbalance and, if no corrective measures are taken, it will take a heavy toll on the future development of the State. Statement 1.5: Important fiscal metrics (` Crore) Sr. No
Description
2006-07
2016-17*
i)
Revenue Deficit
1749
6611
ii)
Fiscal Deficit (excluding UDAY)
4384
12336
iii)
Primary Deficit (Fiscal Deficit less Interest) (excluding UDAY) Revenue Deficit as % of Fiscal Deficit Committed Expenditure as % of Revenue Receipt Capital Expenditure as % of Total Expenditure States own Revenue as % of its Total Revenue Outstanding Debt
232
2238
40%
54%
71%
85%
12.24%
7.82%
77.34%
68.5%
51155
187453
305%
413%
40%
44%
iv) v) vi) vii) viii) ix) x)
Outstanding Debt as % of Revenue receipts Outstanding Debt as % of GSDP
Source: (State Budget Document and Finance Account of AG Punjab) * Data for 2016-17 are the initial figures published by the AG Punjab
Page | 17
Chapter 1: Why a White Paper?
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…an empty treasury
CONCLUSION 1.15
and fast development
The State's financial decline has now seamlessly merged into its economic decline. Punjab's economy
do not go together for a very long time…”
has been in a state of precipitous decline over the last one decade. During this period the rate of growth has been consistently below the national average. It is now one of the slow growing states of the country. In percapita terms, it has slid from the top to the seventh position amongst the major states. The gap between the per capita income of Punjab and the national per capita income is closing down very quickly. It holds a clear lesson that an empty treasury and fast development do not go together for a very long time. Weak finances have also impaired the capacity of the Government to deliver quality public services to its people. To conclude on a positive note, one may say that, the prevalent financial and economic situation is a reason enough for the Government to act fast and decisively.
Page | 18
Chapter 1: Why a White Paper?
WHITE PAPER State Finances
STATE FINANCES
Chapter 2
Page | 19
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
Page | 20
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
STATE FINANCES Chapter 2
2.0 A graphical depiction of the rate of growth of GSDP of the State and its comparison with All India level for the period 2006-07 to 2016-17 in Figure-1 reveals that the growth rate of State was one of the highest i.e. 10.18% in 2006-07 and was more than the All India average of 9.57%. However, in last 10 years, the growth rate of the State remained lower than the All “…the growth rate of
India average except for the year 2013-14 in which the growth
State was one of the
was slightly higher i.e. by meagre 0.23% than the All India
highest i.e. 10.18% in
average. It came down as low as 4.20% against 7.50% of All
2006-07 and was
India level in the year 2014-15. This clearly shows that the
more than the All
State has been falling behind the national average,
India average of 9.57%...”
continuously.
Figure-1: GSDP Growth Rate (In %) “…It came down as low as 4.20% against 7.50% of All India level in the year 2014-15…”
Source: (Department of Economic & Statistical Analysis, Punjab) Note: *From 2012-13 onwards at 2011-12 prices.
Page | 21
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…the State is constantly facing grave paucity of resources for financing its Capital Expenditure…”
2.1 From the nationwide comparison of growth trajectory of various States (Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, GoI), one can observe that the average growth of GSDP recorded by the State of Punjab for the period 2006-07 to 2013-14 has been at 6.85%, which is lower than the average growth recorded by the States like Bihar (10.85%), Gujarat (8.63%), Madhya Pradesh (8.62%), Haryana (8.43%), Maharashtra (8.44%) and Tamil Nadu (8.60%). The details are at Annexure I. 2.2 When one compares the Per Capita Income of the State with the other States and the national average, the picture is very discouraging. While the State continued to hold the top position in Per Capita Income across the country for a long time, it has now lost the race to the States like Haryana and Maharashtra. The State slid from the top to the seventh position amongst the major States. States like Maharashtra, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Gujarat and even Himachal Pradesh are now ahead of Punjab. 2.3 The State finances are in a perilous position. Apart from meeting the day-to-day challenge of keeping the treasury afloat for the routine administrative Expenditure, the State is constantly facing grave paucity of resources for financing its Capital Expenditure. The situation is alarming. Each year, before the Annual Budget is presented, an estimate of the Balance in Current Revenues (BCR) is made. BCR indicates as to what the State can contribute to development after meeting its inevitable routine Expenditures. If Revenue Expenditure is more than Revenue receipts, it means that the State has to devote some of its borrowing to first meet its Revenue Expenditure, and correspondingly funds available for financing development will reduce.
Page | 22
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
The State has been persistently running huge negative BCR starting with (-) `3656 crore in 2007-08, (-) `5757 crore in 2009-10 which increased to (-) `6544 crore in
“…If Revenue Expenditure is more than Revenue receipts, it means that
2014-2015, (-) `6138 crore in 2015-16 and (-) ` 4488 crore
the State has to
in 2016-17. It must be mentioned that, the BCR in the year
devote some of its
2006-07 was (+) `2252 crore given at Annexure II. In the
borrowing to first
process, unfortunately, the budgets have lost their sanctity.
meet its Revenue
The State unfortunately, has been living on a financial lie
Expenditure, and
and ignoring truth for a long time.
correspondingly funds available for financing development will
Figure-2: Balance in Current Revenues (` crore)
reduce… ”
2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 201607 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 BE BCR 2252 -3656 -3637 -5757 -4650 -6373 -6224 -5739 -6544 -6138 -4488
Source: (Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on State Finances)
Page | 23
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…the State was facing liquidity crunch for 269 days in the year 2016-17...”
WAYS & MEANS, AND OVERDRAFT 2.4 The RBI has fixed the Ways and Means Advance (WMA) limit at `925 crore for the State of Punjab from February 2016. Once the payment from the State's account exceeds the actual receipt at any point of time, the treasury goes into ways and means. Further, whenever the net payment out of the State treasury crosses WMA, the State goes into overdraft. As per the RBI guidelines, the State can be in overdraft for 36 working days in a quarter i.e. 144 days in a full year. RBI guidelines mandate that the State treasury cannot be in overdraft for a period of more than 14 working days continuously. In case it happens, the RBI stops all payments and no cheque issued by the State government is honored. Over and above this, in case the overdraft exceeds more than 100% of the ways and means limit, the payments are allowed only up to 5 working days. If the over payment is not brought down below the level of `925 crore, again the payments will be stopped. 2.5 Unfortunately, the RBI had to stop the payments on 29th March 2017. This has put the State in a very embarrassing position and may adversely affect the credibility of its future borrowings and
the
sovereign
guarantees
issued
by the
State
Government for future. Certainly, it does not behove well for the Fiscal health of the State. 2.6 During the year 2016-17, the State remained in overdraft for 104 days against the 144 days permissible in a year and in addition, it remained under Ways and Means Advances (WMA) for 165 days. Thus the State was facing a liquidity crunch for 269 days in the year.
Page | 24
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…The immediate
UNPAID LIABILITIES
commitment that the
2.7 The immediate and medium term liability that the new government has to discharge is staggering. The
State government had to discharge including unpaid bills
immediate commitment that the State government had to
in the treasury when
discharge including unpaid bills in the treasury when the
the new government
new government assumed office would be to the tune of
assumed office would
`13039 crore. The details of which are explained in the
be to the tune of
following paras:
`13039 crore…”
2.8 Pending Liabilities of various grants/loans received from Government of India: The State Government is yet to release `2437 crore on account of various grants/loans received from Government of India during the year 2016-17. This includes Central Assistance for various Central Sector Schemes; NABARD loans; External Aided Projects (EAP); Welfare Schemes; and other Flagship Programs. 2.9 The Government of India has identified certain centrally sponsored
schemes,
total
66,
which
are
being
implemented in the State of Punjab also. The schemes pertain to various departments and ministries. The proposals are being prepared by the State departments, which are approved by various competent authorities of the Government of India. The funding pattern under the various schemes varies from 100% centrally sponsored to those that are shared as 75:25 or 60:40 etc.
Page | 25
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…Funds amounting
The major centrally sponsored schemes are RKVY,
to `1413 crore have
Mid Day Meal, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, National Health
been received from
Mission,
Government of India
SMART
CITIES,
AMRUT
etc.
The
Government of India releases funds which are first
in 2016-17, which
received in the treasury and after a proposal is
were not released to
received
the departments...”
from
the
concerned
administrative
department, the same are released to them. Funds amounting to `1413 crore have been received from Government of India in 2016-17, funds amounting to `150 crore related to welfare schemes for SC/BCs, which were not released to the departments; and the same were utilized/ diverted either in meeting the Revenue Expenditure or in other State schemes 2.10
There are certain projects which are funded through loans from NABARD. The proposals are prepared by the department and sent to NABARD which has fixed a limit for the State. This limit is fixed on yearly basis. For the year 2016-17, NABARD had fixed a limit of `800 crore. The NABARD loans are extended to the State at an interest rate of 5.5% and are thus low cost funds which help the State in building Capital assets. However, even these funds amounting to `174 crore could not be released to the departments concerned and were diverted elsewhere.
Page | 26
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
2.11
Pending Liability of Atta-Dal Scheme: Atta Dal Scheme was launched by the State government on 15 August, 2007. Under the scheme, wheat and pulses are being supplied on subsidized rates of `2 per kg and
“…The pending liability on this account (Dearness Alone) alone is
`2773 crore…”
`30 per kg respectively. To implement Atta Dal Scheme, no financial assistance was provided by the previous Government. To meet the Expenditure, funds were
arranged
by
the
procurement
agencies
(PUNSUP, MARKFED, PSWC, PAIC) at their own level by diverting funds from CCL provided for procurement of wheat and paddy. A total liability of `1747 crore is still outstanding with various agencies, as per details given in Table 1. Table 1: Pending liabilities of Atta Dal Scheme (` crore)
Sr. No 1 2 3 4
Name of agency PUNSUP MARKFED PSWC PAIC TOTAL
Claim 1125.25 349.27 52.34 220.71 1747.57
Source: (Department of Food & Civil Supplies, Government of Punjab)
2.12
Pending Liability of Dearness Allowance: State Government has been giving D.A. to its employees from time to time. However, the date of giving D.A. is not the same as the date given by the Government of India. A decision to give arrears has been taken only in respect of D.A. for the installments due from 100% to 113%. The pending liability on this account alone is `2773 crore (Annexure III).
Page | 27
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…bills of `7791
2.13
crore including some
been providing free power to the farmers for the tube
of the above and a
wells and also to some other sections of the society
few other like salary arrears, retiral benefits, office
Power Subsidy: The Government of Punjab has
both domestic and industrial. 2.14
The agricultural consumption and its Tariff are
expenses, POL etc.
determined on year to year basis by the Punjab State
were pending in
Regulatory Commission on the basis of Tariff petition
treasury, all of which
filed by PSPCL. Based on commitment given by the
lapsed on 31.03.2017
Government, the Commission determines the amount
as the treasury did
of subsidy for different categories of consumers in its
not have funds to
Tariff order. The amount subsidy for SC DS & Non SC
honour these bills...”
BPL consumers determined in the Tariff order PSERC for the year 2016-17, was `6113.66 crore and `1483.74 crore respectively. 2.15
Further,
additional
subsidy
determined
by the
Commission for OBC consumers and small power consumers makes the total subsidy payable during 2016-17 to `7943.07 crore, out of which, only an amount of `5600.70 crore was released, leaving a balance of `2342.37 crore as on 31.03.2017. This has led to a severe stress on the financial health of PSPCL. 2.16
Apart from the above, bills of `7791 crore including some of the above and a few other like salary arrears, retiral benefits, office expenses, POL etc. were pending in treasury, all of which lapsed on 31.03.2017 as the treasury did not have funds to honour these bills.
Page | 28
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
2.17
In
addition,
many
departments
especially
“…the total unpaid
the
liabilities of State
Engineering Departments have incurred liabilities
Government stood at
based on the budgetary provisions during the course
`13039 crore as on
of the year 2016-17, whose bills would now be
31st March 2017,
presented to the State treasury.
plus some of the
Thus, the total unpaid liabilities of State Government
liabilities that would
stood at `13039 crore as on
be presented during
31st
March 2017, plus
some of the liabilities that would be presented during
the course of the year
the course of the year for works that have been
for works that have
executed based on the inflated budgetary provisions.
been executed based on the inflated budgetary provisions...”
Table 2: Unpaid Liabilities of State (` crore)
Sr. No. A. B. C.
Particulars Atta-Dal Scheme Dearness Allowance Power Subsidy Pending Bills in the treasury including D. some of the above and a few others like salaries, office expenses, POL etc. Total (A to D)
Amount 1747 2773 728 7791* 13039
*This includes the amount of lapsed bills of:
Centrally Sponsored Schemes: `845.11 crore State Plan schemes: `1857.86 crore Power Subsidy: `1614 crore
STATE REVENUE RECEIPT 2.18
The Receipts on account of Revenue in the consolidated fund of the State arise mainly from three major streams. These are as follows:
Page | 29
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…The share of
State’s Own Tax Revenue
Central transfer grew
State’s Own Non Tax Revenue
in the year 2015-16
Central Transfers (Tax Share & Grants)
by 70%. This was on account of the award
2.19
State’s own Tax Revenue constitutes the major share
of the Fourteenth
of the total Revenue Receipts of the State, accounting
Finance
for as much as 61% in the year 2016-17 (Data for 2016-
Commission…”
17 are the initial figures published by the AG Punjab). The own Non Tax Revenue in State accrues largely from fees levied on services and accounts on an average to about 7% of the total Revenue Receipts. The State’s share of Central Taxes and Grants from Central Government depends on the awards of the Finance Commission and the allocations on account of Central Schemes respectively and together account for 32% of the Revenue Receipts. 2.20
The share of Central Taxes grew in the year 2015-16 by 70%. This was on account of the award of the Fourteenth Finance Commission. The increase was on account of different principles adopted by the FFC/ Government of India for sharing of central taxes with the states.
Figure 3: Components of State's Total Revenue Receipts - Punjab (2016-17; ` crore)
Source: (Data for 2016-17 are the initial figures published by the AG Punjab)
Page | 30
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…the State’s own
STATE’S OWN TAX & NON-TAX REVENUE 2.21
Revenues as a share
Revenue Receipts increased from `16795 crore in 2006-07 to `45408 crore in 2016-17 (an increase of 170%). Against this, receipts from Government of India
of total Revenue has declined from 77.34% in 2006-07 to 68.50% in 2016-17…”
i.e. share of central taxes and grants increased from `3806 crore to `14304 crore during the corresponding period (an increase of 276%) whereas State’s Own Tax and Non-Tax Revenues increased from `12990 crore to `31104 crore (an increase of 139%) 2.22
From the trends in Revenue Receipts for the period 2006-07 to 2016-17 as depicted in Figure 4, it may be seen that the State’s Own Revenues as a share of total Revenue have declined from 77.34% in 2006-07 to 68.50% in 2016-17 (Table 3). As against this in the corresponding period, the share of Central transfers has gone up from 22.66% to 31.50%. This indicates a perceptible decline in the State’s ability to raise resources internally.
Figure 4: Composition of Revenue Receipts (% to Total Revenue Receipts)
Page | 31
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…The share of Central transfers has gone up from 22.66%
Table 3: Composition of Revenue Receipts (In %) Year
Central Transfers
Tax Revenue
Non-Tax Revenue
Total
Share in Taxes
Grant in Aid
Total
2006-07
53.69
23.65
77.34
9.32
13.34
22.66
2007-08
51.46
27.31
78.77
10.27
10.97
21.24
2008-09
53.83
27.92
81.75
10.06
8.18
18.24
2009-10
54.34
25.51
79.85
9.68
10.47
20.15
2010-11
60.95
19.31
80.26
11.05
8.69
19.74
2011-12
71.82
5.33
77.15
13.55
9.30
22.85
2012-13
70.47
8.20
78.67
12.66
8.66
21.32
2013-14
68.69
9.09
77.78
12.62
9.69
22.31
2014-15
65.53
7.38
72.91
12.05
15.04
27.09
2015-16
64.28
6.38
70.66
19.29
10.05
29.34
2016-17
61.26
7.24
68.50
21.14
10.36
31.50
to 31.50%.This indicates a
State’s Own Revenue
perceptible decline in the State’s ability to raise resources internally...”
Source: (State Budget Document and Finance Account of AG Punjab) Note: Data for 2016-17 are initial figures published by AG Punjab.
Page | 32
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
2.23
A declining trend in the State’s Own Revenues and dependence on the Central Transfer of funds over the period of ten years indicates a narrowing tax base, a contraction of charged Government services and non-
“…indicative of systemic weaknesses and a suboptimal resource mobilization within the State…”
recovery of the economic cost of services. This is indicative of systemic weaknesses and a suboptimal resource mobilization within the State. Figure 5: Own Tax Revenue Receipts (2016-17) (` crore)
Source: (Data for 2016-17 are the initial figures published by the AG Punjab)
CENTRAL TRANSFERS 2.24
The share of Central Taxes in total Receipts have increased from 9.32 % (2006-07) to 21.14 % (2016-17) indicating the State’s increasing dependence upon Central transfers and devolution during the 10 year period (Table 4). Also, the share of total Central Transfers in Revenue Receipts has grown from 22.66% (2006-07) to 31.50% (2016-17) as mentioned in Table 5.
Page | 33
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…the transfer of
This trend of growing dependence on the Government
Grants in Aid from
of India for resources is also an indication of the lack of
Centre has
tax buoyancy within the State’s Own Tax Revenue
decreased from
streams and it needs to be addressed. However the
13.33% in 2006-07 to
transfer of Grants in Aid from Centre has decreased
10.36% in 2016-17…”
from 13.33% in 2006-07 to 10.36% in 2016-17 (Table 4). The primary reason for this is the lack of the State “…primary reason for
to provide its part of the share in Central Schemes. As
this is the lack of the
a result, the State has been unable to fully leverage the
State to furnish its
grants in aid from the Central Government.
part of the share in Central Schemes…”
Table 4: Share of Central Transfers (` crore) Year
Share of Central taxes
Grants in Aid from Centre
1
2
% of Central Tax to Total Revenue Receipts 3
% of Grants in Aid to Total Revenue Receipts 4
2006-07
1566
2240
9.32
13.33
2007-08
1975
2109
10.27
10.97
2008-09
2084
1695
10.06
8.18
2009-10
2144
2320
9.68
10.47
2010-11
3051
2399
11.05
8.69
2011-12
3554
2441
13.55
9.30
2012-13
4059
2776
12.66
8.66
2013-14
4431
3401
12.62
9.69
2014-15
4703
5870
12.05
15.04
2015-16
8009
4174
19.29
10.05
2016-17
9600
4704
21.24
10.36
Source: (State Budget Document and Finance Account of AG Punjab) Note: Data for 2016-17 are initial figures published by AG Punjab.
Page | 34
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…It may not be
Table 5: Total Revenue Receipts (` crore) Year
States Receipts
possible to influence Central Transfers
Total Revenue Receipts (TRR)
Own Tax Revenue
Non Tax Revenue
Total State Receipt (1+2)
% to TRR (3/9)
Share of Central Taxes
Grants in Aid
Total Central Transfer (5+6)
% to TRR (7/9)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
items like salaries, pension and interest Expenditure. But it is a different case with
2006-07
9017
3973
12990
77.34
1566
2240
3806
22.66
16796
2007-08
9899
5254
15153
78.77
1975
2109
4084
21.24
19238
2008-09
11150
5784
16934
81.75
2084
1695
3779
18.24
20713
Revenue Expenditure
2009-10
12039
5653
17692
79.85
2144
2320
4464
20.15
22157
net of Salaries,
2010-11
16828
5330
22158
80.26
3051
2399
5450
19.74
27608
2011-12
18841
1398
20239
77.15
3554
2441
5995
22.85
26234
Interest and
2012-13
22588
2629
25217
78.67
4059
2776
6835
21.32
32051
Pensions. This
2013-14
24079
3191
27270
77.78
4431
3401
7832
22.31
35104
component can be
2014-15
25570
2880
28450
72.91
4703
5870
10573
27.09
39023
2015-16
26690
2650
29340
70.66
8009
4174
12183
29.34
41523
2016-17
27818
3286
31104
68.50
9600
4704
14304
31.50
45408
regard to Non Plan
modulated without adverse impact on development. What
Source: (State Budget Document and Finance Account of AG Punjab) Note: Data for 2016-17 are initial figures published by AG Punjab.
has been its behavior during the last ten
STATE EXPENDITURE 2.25
years?…”
To understand the yawning Revenue gap as indicated by the widening Revenue Deficit, and the consequent crisis, one needs to examine both the Revenue and Expenditure side of State finances. While examining the growth in Revenue Expenditure, the trend in the various components of the Expenditure needs to be analyzed closely. It may be a truism that the Expenditure has to be contained within the limits of Revenue. It may not be possible to influence items like salaries, pension and interest Expenditure. But it is a different case with regard to Non Plan Revenue Expenditure net of Salaries, Interest and Pensions. This component can be modulated without adverse impact on development. What has been its behavior during the last ten years? This is the question that needs to be
Page | 35
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…State’s Revenue Expenditure i.e.85% of total Expenditure is taken up by salaries,
REVENUE EXPENDITURE 2.26
The most fundamental classification of the government Expenditure is Revenue and Capital Expenditure. All
interest payments
Expenditure
and pensions…”
that
goes
towards
operation
&
maintenance, committed salary Expenditure and does not create any assets is called Revenue Expenditure
“…If we add the
and all Expenditure that creates long-term assets is
power subsidy and
called Capital Expenditure. The purpose of Capital
Expenditure on Police
Expenditure is to enhance the capacity of the economy
this together accounts
to produce goods and services through public
for 107% of the
investment in infrastructure like roads, bridges, power
Revenue Receipts of
generation
the State….”
networks,
and
distribution
transport,
capacity,
sewerage,
water
irrigation supply,
education, health, sports facilities, etc. In fact, Capital outlays must increase constantly in order to meet the growing infrastructure needs of a growing State like Punjab that spur development, increase consumption and thereby lead to greater tax Revenue for the State and a better quality of living for the citizens. 2.27
In 2016-17, 85% of total Revenue Receipts were incurred on salaries, interest payments and pensions. If we add the power subsidy, this together accounts for 102% of the Revenue Receipts of the State. These are committed liabilities of the Government that must be met each year.
2.28
If the components of Expenditure for the period 200607 to 2016-17 are analyzed, the Revenue Expenditure has increased from 88% to 92% (Figure 6 & 7) of the Total Expenditure.
Page | 36
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…The average
Figure 6: Components of Expenditure (2006-07; ` crore)
salary of the Punjab Government employees is much higher as compared to the other States and even the Government of India…”
Source: (State Budget Document and Finance Account of AG Punjab)
Figure 7: Components of Expenditure (2016-17; ` crore)
Source: (Data for 2016-17 are the initial figures published by the AG Punjab)
2.29
Salary Structure and Expenditure: The average salary of the Punjab Government employees is much higher as compared to the other States and even the Government of India. No other State governments have such onerous obligations like Government of Punjab. On the other hand, the State spends merely 5.13% of its Revenue Expenditure on medical and public health, and 16.3% on general education.
Page | 37
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…the State spends merely 5.13% of its Revenue Expenditure on medical and public health…”
2.30
The State Government is spending approximately 9.1% of its Revenue Expenditure as Expenditure on Police and Jails which is significantly higher as compared to larger States like Karnataka, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh.
Figure 8: Components of Revenue Expenditure (` crore)
Source: (State Budget Document and Finance Account of AG Punjab) Note: Data for 2016-17 are initial figures published by AG Punjab
Page | 38
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
2.31
Table 6 below shows the breakup of Revenue Expenditure in the State on the major components viz. Salaries, Pension and Interest and other Revenue Expenditure. The trend in increase of the State’s Revenue Expenditure shows
that
the
Revenue
“…The total Revenue Expenditure had been higher than the total Revenue Receipts for the decade under reference, thus
Expenditure has increased from `18544 crore (87.76%
indicating that the
of total Expenditure) in 2006-07 to `52018 crore
total Revenue
(92.18% of total Expenditure) in 2016-17 (an increase
Expenditure has
of 180%). During the same period, Expenditure on
grown faster than the
Salaries rose from `5783 crore to `19758 crore (an
Revenue Receipts,
increase of 242%), on pensions from `1905 crore to `8749 crore (an increase of 359%) and on Interest from
leading to an adverse Revenue situation…”
`4152 crore to `10098 crore (an increase of 143%). Thus the growing share of salary and pensions in its Revenue Expenditure prevented the State from achieving a Revenue surplus. With State’s borrowings and debt growing over time as indicated in Table 6, interest payments have also increased. The total Revenue Expenditure had been higher than the total Revenue Receipts for the decade, 2007-2017, thus indicating that the total Revenue Expenditure has grown faster than the Revenue Receipts, leading to an adverse Revenue situation.
Page | 39
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…total Revenue
Table 6: Salaries, Pension and Interest Payments (` crore)
Expenditure has grown faster than the
Year
Revenue Receipts, leading to an adverse Revenue situation.”
Interest Payments
Pension Payments
Salaries & Wages
Total
Other RE
1
2
3
4 (1+2+3)
5
Total Revenue Expenditure 6 (4+5)
2006-07
4152
1905
5783
11840
6704
18544
2007-08
4527
2433
6438
13398
9664
23062
2008-09
4902
2830
6834
14566
10003
24569
2009-10
5011
3357
8225
16593
10815
27408
2010-11
5515
5309
9750
20574
12322
32896
2011-12
6280
5657
12403
24340
8705
33045
2012-13
6831
5966
14155
26952
12506
39458
2013-14
7820
6277
14862
28959
12681
41640
2014-15
8960
7249
16303
32512
14100
46612
2015-16
9782
7833
17437
35052
15022
50074
2016-17
10098
8749
19758
38605
13413
52018
Source: (State Budget Document and Finance Account of AG Punjab) Note: Data for 2016-17 are initial figures published by AG Punjab.
Page | 40
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
Figure
9:
Total
Revenue
Expenditure
(2006-07;
`
crore)
“…Government did not exercise adequate control on
Interest Payments, 4152, 23%
Other Revenue Expenditure, 6704, 36%
avoidable Expenditure...”
Pension Payments, 1905, 10%
Salaries & Wages, 5783, 31%
Source: (Data for 2016-17 are the initial figures published by the AG Punjab)
Figure 10: Total Revenue Expenditure (2016-17; ` crore)
Other Revenue Expenditure, 13413, 26%
Interest Payments, 10098, 19%
Pension Payments, 8749, 17%
Salaries & Wages, 19758, 38%
Source: (State Budget Document and Finance Account of AG Punjab)
Page | 41
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…If the State would have maintained the
2.32
It is thus observed that even in areas where prudent financial management would demand restraint and
same level of the
control; the previous Government did not exercise
growth in CAPEX in
adequate control on avoidable Expenditure. Evidently
the future, the State could have been
one of the factors that aggravated the financial crisis
among the best
during the tenure of the previous Government has been
States in terms of its
the failure to control avoidable Revenue Expenditure.
public infrastructure…”
CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 2.33
The trend of CAPEX (Capital Expenditure) during 200607 to 2016-17 is captured in the Table 7.
2.34
The share of Capital Expenditure has been showing a declining trend over the years, from 12.24% in 2006-07 to 7.82% in the year 2016-17. The Expenditure had fallen to as low as 4.61% in the year 2011-12. If the State would have maintained the same level of growth in CAPEX in the future, the State could have been among the best States in terms of its public infrastructure. But that was not to be….!
Figure 11: Revenue Deficit as % of GSDP (In %) 2.51
2.66 2.22
2.34
2.55
2.49 1.97
2.14
2.18
1.38
Source: (State Budget Document and Finance Account of AG Punjab)
Page | 42
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…The State will now
Table 7: Share of Revenue and Capital Expenditure (` crore) Year
Revenue Expenditure 1
% of Total Expenditure 2
Capital Expenditure 3
% of Total Expenditure 4
2006-07
18544
87.76
2586
12.24
2007-08
23062
91.32
2192
8.68
2008-09
24569
89.58
2858
10.42
2009-10
27408
92.68
2166
7.32
2010-11
32896
93.24
2384
6.76
2011-12
33045
95.39
1598
4.61
2012-13
39458
95.37
1916
4.63
2013-14
41640
94.98
2201
5.02
2014-15
46612
93.73
3118
6.27
2015-16
50074
94.24
3059
5.76
2016-17
52018
92.18
4412
7.82
have to wait longer for catching up with advanced States and that effort will now cost us more…”
Source: (State Budget Document and Finance Account of AG Punjab) Note: Data for 2016-17 are initial figures published by AG Punjab.
2.35
Thus, one consequence of the Fiscal issues is that the Capital Expenditure in the State has suffered hugely. The State will now have to wait longer for catching up with advanced States and such an effort will now cost us more. This indicates that the policy stance has been wavering
and
uncontrolled
growth
in
Revenue
Expenditure came in the way of a sustained growth of Capital Expenditure. On examining the rates of growth of these Expenditures in the period under reference, the growth of both Expenditures has been fluctuating widely. Unfortunately, as explained in Chapter 6, the Capital Expenditure incurred through off budget resources was also largely on non-resource generating assets, thus underlining poor planning and mispriorities in resource allocation of the previous Government.
Page | 43
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…As per the mandate of the 13th Finance Commission, the State was to
REVENUE DEFICIT 2.36
The excess of Revenue Expenditure over Revenue Receipts is defined as a Revenue Deficit, while an
achieve a zero
excess
Revenue Deficit from
of
Revenue
Receipts
over
Revenue
the year 2011-12
Expenditure is defined as a Revenue surplus. A
onwards…..”
Revenue Deficit implies that the State Government does not have sufficient funds to meet its committed Expenditures, the gap is met through borrowings, and accordingly fewer funds are available for productive and Capital Expenditure. 2.37
Revenue Deficit has hit its worst in the last ten years. In 2006-07 the Revenue Deficit was `1749 crore. However, this Deficit recorded more than two-fold increase in the very first year of the previous government coming into power i.e. 2007-08 at `3823 crore. It has since increased to `8550 crore in 2015-16 (Table 8) and the position is much worse in 2016-17 if we take into account the pending liabilities also of `13039 crore (Table 2) and initial figures for 2016-17 (Figure 11).
2.38
As per the mandate of the 13th Finance Commission, the State was to achieve zero Revenue Deficit from the year 2011-12 onwards, which has not been done. The State lost out a priceless and historic opportunity to catch up with the rest of the country in infrastructure investment by lowering the Revenue Deficit and increasing Capital Expenditure.
Page | 44
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…Fiscal Deficit of
Table 8: Trends in Revenue Deficit Year
`4384 crore was
Revenue (-) Deficit / Surplus
Revenue (-) Deficit / Surplus
(` crore)
as % of GSDP *
recorded in the year 2006-07, which has
2006-07
1749
1.38
2007-08
3823
2.51
2008-09
3856
2.22
`11762 crore in
2009-10
5251
2.66
2015-16…”
2010-11
5289
2.34
2011-12
6811
2.55
2012-13
7407
2.49
2013-14
6537
1.97
2014-15
7591
2.14
2015-16
8550
2.18
increased by 168% to
Source: (State Budget Document and Finance Account of AG Punjab) *Calculated on the basis of latest GSDP value provided by ESO, Punjab
FISCAL DEFICIT 2.39
The Fiscal Deficit means the excess of the total disbursements from the consolidated fund of the State (excluding repayment of debt) over total receipts excluding the debt receipts during a financial year. A declining Fiscal Deficit signifies a consolidation of the resource position and sustainable functioning of the Government. A Fiscal Deficit is usually financed by way of borrowings by the State. Fiscal Deficit of `4384 crore was recorded in the year 2006-07, which has increased by 168% to `11762 crore in 2015-16 (Table 9). If loans taken over by the State under UDAY scheme are included the Fiscal Deficit comes to `17359 crore. This trend indicates that the Government spending has been increasingly financed by raising loans (Figure 12).
Page | 45
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…Fiscal Deficit which was 3.02% of GSDP in 2007-08 has
Table 9: Trends in Fiscal Deficit Year
Fiscal Deficit (` crore)
Fiscal Deficit as % of GSDP**
risen sharply to
2006-07
4384
3.45
4.25% in 2015-16.
2007-08
4604
3.02
This trend indicates
2008-09
6690
3.84
that the Government
2009-10
6170
3.12
spending is being
2010-11
7143
3.16
2011-12
8491
3.18
2012-13
9346
3.14
2013-14
8790
2.65
2014-15
10842
3.05
2015-16*
11762
3.00
increasingly financed by raising loans…”
Source: (State Budget Document and Finance Account of AG Punjab) *Loans undertaken by the State Government under UDAY scheme is considered then the Fiscal Deficit amounts to `17359 crore and the Fiscal Deficit as % GSDP will be 4.25%. **Calculated on the basis of latest GSDP value provided by ESO, Punjab
Figure 12: Fiscal Deficit as % of GSDP (In %)
Source: (State Budget Document and Finance Account of AG Punjab)
Page | 46
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
2.40
A comparison of the Revenue Deficit and the Fiscal Deficit during the year 2006-07 and 2015-16 would reveal that while the Revenue Deficit was at 1.38% of the GSDP at the end of financial year 2006-07, it was
“…It clearly shows that though the State had larger Fiscal Deficit at the end of the year 2006-07 but
2.18% at the end 2015-16 (Table 8). The corresponding
the Revenue Deficit
figures for the Fiscal Deficit are 3.45% and 3%
was very less and,
respectively (Table 9). No doubt, the Fiscal Deficit at
therefore, the State
the end of the year 2006-07 was more than 3%, but at
Government could
same time the difference between Revenue Deficit and
spend money on the
Fiscal Deficit was 2.07% as against mere 0.82% of
Capital and
GSDP at the end of financial year 2015-16. It clearly
development
shows that though the State had larger Fiscal Deficit at
projects…”
the end of the year 2006-07 but the Revenue Deficit was very less and, therefore, the State Government had spent funds on the Capital and development projects. Correspondingly, during the year 2015-16, there was very little money left to spend on the development Expenditure after increased Revenue Expenditure. STATE DEBT LIABILITIES - OUTSTANDING DEBT 2.41
Debt Liabilities of the State inter-alia consist of Internal Debt of the State, Loans and Advances from Government of India and Public Account Liabilities. As the Tax Revenues are not able to finance the State’s entire Expenditure, over the years there has been a growing dependence on public debt as a major source of financing Government’s Expenditure. The main sources are: 1. Open Market Borrowings (OMB) 2. National Small Saving Fund (NSSF)
Page | 47
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…over the years
3. NABARD
there has been a
4. Government of India
growing reliance on
5. International Financial Institutions
public debt as a major
6. Commercial banks and other FIs
source for financing
7. Ways and Means Advances (WMA)
Government’s
8. Public Account
Expenditure…”
Table 10: Outstanding Debt to Total Revenue Receipts (` crore) Year
Outstanding Debt
Total Revenue Receipts (TRR)
Debt as %GSDP
16795
Outstanding Debt as % of TRR 305
2006-07
51155
2007-08
55982
19238
291
36.77
2008-09 2009-10
61850
20713
299
35.54
67971
22157
307
34.42
2010-11
74777
27608
271
33.06
2011-12
83099
26234
317
31.17
2012-13
92282
32051
288
30.99
2013-14
102234
35104
291
30.78
2014-15
112366
39023
288
31.66
2015-16
129441
41523
312
33.06
2016-17
148832*
45408
328
31.60
40.24
Source: (State Budget Document and Finance Account of AG Punjab) Note: Data for 2016-17 are initial figures published by AG Punjab. * Doesn’t include the other debts as indicated in Table 14(Total Debt)
Table 11: Outstanding Debt and Expenditure on Debt Servicing (` crore) Year
Net Borrowings
Interest Payments
Repayment of Loans
2006-07
-494
4152
1399
Debt Servicing (Interest + Repayment) 5551
Debt Servicing As % of TRR 33.05
2007-08
4579
4527
1719
6246
32.47
2008-09
4864
4902
1835
6737
32.53
2009-10
5648
5011
2283
7294
32.92
2010-11
6159
5515
2340
7855
28.45
2011-12
7564
6280
2675
9216
35.13
2012-13
8616
6831
3674
10505
32.78
2013-14
9422
7820
3650
11470
32.67
2014-15
9884
8960
3214
12174
31.20
2015-16
17486
9782
3830
13612
32.78
2016-17
16730
10098
4047
14145*
31.15*
Source: (State Budget Document and Finance Account of AG Punjab) Note: Data for 2016-17 are initial figures published by AG Punjab. *This figure is likely to increase sharply in 2017-18 on account of increased additional Debt Servicing of `3240 crore per annum on account of the clean term loan taken for the CCL of food account in March 2017.
Page | 48
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
2.42
The growth rate of the debt obligations over the period
“...The huge
as depicted in the Table 10, has risen from `51155 crore
Outstanding Debt of
in 2006-07 to `148832 crore in 2016-17. Though the
the State pre-empts
growth in Debt as percentage of GSDP has decreased from 40.24% to 31.15% (*doesn’t include other debts as mentioned in Table 14), but the underneath truth about the
significant resources of the State for debt servicing…”
corresponding growth in terms of GSDP in the same period has been hidden also this figure is likely to increase sharply in 2017-18 on account of increased additional Debt Servicing of `3240 crore per annum on account of the clean term loan taken for the CCL of food account in March 2017. The growth in GSDP has been more than two-fold and has risen from `127123 crore in 2006-07 to `427870 crore in 2016-17 (237%), meaning thereby, that while the people of the State have worked hard to increase the GSDP of the State, the government has mismanaged its finances increasing its debt stock. 2.43
The huge outstanding debt of the State pre-empts significant resources of the State for debt servicing. The total debt servicing Expenditure in 2016-17 was `14145 crore (Principal `4047 crore and Interest Payment `10098 crore – Table 11). This figure is likely to increase by 30% in 2017-18, on account of the increased debt liabilities of `29919.96 crore that the previous State government accepted in exchange for concealing the mismanagement of the food sector.
Page | 49
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…Borrowing to
2.44
finance present
As borrowings have increased over the years, the Government is also borrowing to repay old debts as is
consumption
evident from Table 11. In the past ten years, the
represented by non-
Government has used borrowings as a source of funds
plan Revenue
to meet a part of its committed Expenditure, which is
Expenditure…”
not a healthy sign. Borrowing by the Government is not undesirable per se, but these borrowings must be deployed largely for Capital Expenditure on resource generating assets as well as on social infrastructure for the debt to be sustainable in the long term. However, the trend of borrowings to finance present consumption represented by Revenue Expenditure is unsustainable in the long term as it does not produce future streams of income and still needs to be repaid. 2.45
Informal Debt: The informal debt is the amount of loans raised by the government internally from State Agencies. The State has taken these loans from the State agencies/ boards for meeting its Expenditure needs. This is in a way circumventing the provisions of the FRBM Act since this debt is never reflected in the accounts of the State Government. The details of funds borrowed through agencies for the year 2016-17 is depicted in Table 12.
Table 12: Borrowing from Agencies (2016-17; ` crore) Source of Debt PIDB PunGrain Housing & Urban Development PUDA Advance taken from Food Agencies to pay EMI’s (3 months) Total Source: (Concerned Departments)
Debt 1125 250 250 2000 810 4,435
Note: the State government is paying no Interest on these debts.
Page | 50
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
2.46
Another
discernible
aspect
is
that
the
previous
“…The informal debt
government had forced agencies and organizations of
is the amount of loans
the State like PIDB, PUDA, GMADA, RDB etc. to incur
raised by the
huge debt liabilities and fund Expenditures (many a times outside their mandate and mainly on non-resource generating assets) that should ordinarily be carried out by the State. These Expenditures were neither presented
government internally from State Agencies, which was `4435 crore in 2016-17…”
for the sanction of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha nor were these subject to the audit of the CAG. This aspect is being dealt separately in detail in subsequent pages.
CONTINGENT LIABILITIES & STATE GUARANTEES 2.47
Contingent Liability though, not an obligation to pay unless a certain discrete event(s) occurs and therefore often referred to as off-balance sheet
liability.
Contingent liabilities can be explicit or implicit. Explicit liability means specific obligations of the government that is established by law or a contract authorized by law. Implicit liability implies moral obligation or expected responsibility usually recognized after an event or condition is realized. These include: default of municipalities,
bank
failure
(bail-out),
deposit
insurance, failure of a non-guaranteed pension fund, natural disaster relief, etc. The guarantee commitments of State Government in respect of State public sector enterprises (SPSEs) are, in fact, a major source of potential risk to Fiscal and debt sustainability at the State level in general and in particular where SPSEs have accumulated huge losses and debt liabilities.
Page | 51
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…due to poor recovery of and non-
2.48
Various Public Sector Undertakings carry out projects for public interest. Sometimes these projects require
contribution to the
financing for which they approach financial institutions.
guarantee redemption fund has put the State
Usually financial institutions demand Government
Fiscal to a great
guarantee
risk…”
Institutions/banks reduce the rate of interest on the
as
a
collateral
security.
Financial
loans if government extends guarantee for the projects. 2.49
The Government guarantee is extended for the long term as well as short term loans. According to FRBM Act, there is a cap on extending guarantee on long term loans which is 80% of the total Revenue Receipts of previous year. Government also charges a guarantee fee @ 0.5% on the loan amount if loans are repayable within 1 year, 1% on the loan amount if loans are repayable within 3 years and 2% on the loan amount if loans are repayable after 3 years. In
terms
of
the
12th
Finance
Commission
recommendations, the State introduced the “Guarantee Redemption Fund Scheme” with an objective to meet its obligations arising out of the Guarantee extended to State level entities, so that this guarantee money should create a sinking fund to provide for the contingencies. Accordingly over the period 2013-14 to 2015-16, the State was required to contribute minimum amount of `1241.58 crore (Finance Accounts 2015-16 AG Punjab). However, poor recovery and noncontribution to the guarantee redemption fund, has put the State Fiscal to a great risk, and the State Government is now forced to bailout some of the SPSEs who had borrowed using State Guarantees.
Page | 52
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…poor recovery and
Table 13: Government Guarantees as on 31st March 2017
non-contribution to
1.
2.
3.
4.
Total Revenue Receipts for the year 2016-17
`45407.76 crore
Permissible Guarantee Limit (calculated @ 80% of the Revenue Receipts of the previous year)
`36326.20 crore
Total long term loans outstanding against govt. guarantees as on 31.03.2017
`20608.17 crore
Balance amount available for guarantees
the guarantee redemption fund, has put the State Fiscal to a great risk, and the State Government is now forced to bailout some of the SPSEs who had borrowed
`15718.03 crore
using State Guarantees…”
Source: (Collected from respective PSUs)
2.50
While the above figures may look healthy indicating a cushion for the State government to provide guarantees for debt that its enterprises may raise, the truth is that the guarantees provided earlier to PSPCL and the food agencies have now been converted to State debt as a result of the UDAY scheme and the loan takeover on account of CCL of food agencies by the State government. The long term loan raised by the State Government to settle the legacy CCL accounts of foodgrains amounting to `29919.96 crore have also been taken apart from `15628 crore under UDAY Bonds. This all adds up to `187452.96 crore (44% of GSDP). Taking altogether, the total debt including guarantees
comes
to
`208060.96
crore
which
constitutes 49% of GSDP (Table 14). However, as per the 14th Finance Commission recommendations, the outstanding debt as % of GSDP is required to be 25% during 2015-16 to 2019-20. Page | 53
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…This all adds up to `187452.96 crore (44% of GSDP).
Table 14: Total Debt as on 31st March 2017 (` crore) Sr. No.
Particulars
Amount
1.
Outstanding Debt (including UDAY Bonds for 2015-16 & 2016-17)
2.
Informal Debt
4435.00
`208060.96 crore
3.
UDAY Bonds (for 2017-18)
4266.00
which constitutes
4.
Cash Credit Limit for Food grains Procurement
5.
Total Debt (1 to 4) (A)
187452.96
6.
Outstanding Guarantee
20608.00
7.
Total Debt + Guarantee (5+6) (B)
Taking altogether, the total debt including guarantees comes to
49% of GSDP…”
“…However, as per
148832.00
29919.96
208060.96
the 14th Finance Commission
Total Debt
= `187452.96 crore
recommendations,
GSDP
= `427870 crore
the outstanding debt
DEBT/ GSDP
= 44%
Total Debt & Guarantee
= `208060.96 crore
required to be 25%
GSDP
= `427870 crore
during 2015-16 to
(DEBT+Guarantee)/GSDP
= 49%
as % of GSDP is
A.
B.
2019-20...”
2.51
All this becomes more relevant when the budgeted Revenue Estimates are far behind the actual receipts. The shortfall between the actual receipts and the budgeted Revenue Receipts has been `2009 crore in 2010-11, `7562 crore in 2013-14 and `4773 in 201617 (Table 15). At the same time, the gap between the actual Capital Expenditure and the budgeted estimates has been much higher. This was as high as 70.51% in 2011-12 and 69.78% in 2013-14. However, it has been observed that the actual Capital Expenditure was higher than the budgeted Capital Expenditure only in 2006-07 (Table 16).
Page | 54
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
Similarly, the actual Expenditure against the budgeted estimates on plan allocations was 143.80% of the approved outlay in 2006-07, whereas the same has since been decreasing over the subsequent years. In
“…the budgeted Revenue estimates are far behind the actual receipts…”
the year 2009-10, this ratio declined drastically to 57.67%, which is the lowest in 10 years (Table 17).
Table 15: Revenue Receipts - Actual v/s Budgeted (` crore) Year
Budget Estimates
Actual
Shortfall
% shortfall
2007-08
23160
19238
3922
16.93
2008-09
24261
20713
3548
14.63
2009-10
26072
22157
3916
15.02
2010-11
29617
27608
2009
6.78
2011-12
32027
26234
5792
18.09
2012-13
38043
32051
5992
15.75
2013-14
42666
35104
7562
17.72
2014-15
44894
39023
5871
13.08
2015-16
46229
41523
4706
10.18
2016-17
50181
45408
4773
9.51
Source: (State Budget Document and Finance Account of AG Punjab) Note: Data for 2016-17 are initial figures published by AG Punjab
Page | 55
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…the actual
Table 16: Capital Expenditure- Actual v/s Budgeted (` crore)
Expenditure against Year
Budget Estimates
Actual
Shortfall
% shortfall
the budgeted estimates on plan
2006-07
2376
2586
-210
-8.83
2007-08
4174
2192
1982
47.49
2008-09
3483
2858
625
17.94
approved outlay in
2009-10
3550
2166
1384
38.98
2006-07…”
2010-11
3062
2384
678
22.14
2011-12
5418
1598
3820
70.51
2012-13
5815
1916
3899
67.06
10, this ratio declined
2013-14
7283
2201
5082
69.78
drastically to 57.67%,
2014-15
6066
3118
2948
48.60
which is the lowest in
2015-16
4857
3059
1797
37.01
2016-17
4804
4412
392
8.16
allocations was 143.80% of the
“…In the year 2009-
10 years...”
Source: (State Budget Document and Finance Account of AG Punjab)
Table 17: Plan Outlay - Actual v/s Budgeted (` crore) Year
Approved Outlay (BE)
Actual Expenditure
% of Approved Outlay
2006-07
4000.00
5751.83
143.80
2007-08
5111.00
5024.09
98.30
2008-09
6210.00
6925.00
111.52
2009-10
8625.00
4973.78
57.67
2010-11
9150.00
8325.00
90.98
2011-12
11520.00
7457.00
64.73
2012-13
14000.00
9684.90
69.18
2013-14
16125.00
11808.37
73.23
2014-15
20099.83
15030.03
74.78
2015-16
21173.90
20096.40
94.91
Source: (State Budget Document and Finance Account of AG Punjab)
Page | 56
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…the Expenditure
CONCLUSION
has been postponed while the receipts had been fast-forwarded through escrowing future Revenues …”
2.52
From the above, it is clear that the budgets have not been prepared very realistically. While the budget estimates on the receipt side have been exaggerated year after year as mentioned in Table 15, at the same time the actual receipt has been decreasing as compare
to
budgeted
figures.
Moreover,
the
Expenditure has been postponed while the receipts had been
fast-forwarded
through
escrowing
future
Revenues while incurring debt and leaving huge unpaid liabilities in the treasury for the coming year.
Page | 57
Chapter 2: State Finances
WHITE PAPER State Finances
Page | 58
Chapter 3: Liability Of Cash Credit Limit For Food Grains
WHITE PAPER State Finances
LIABILITY OF CASH CREDIT LIMIT FOR FOOD GRAINS
Chapter 3
Page | 59
Chapter 3: Liability Of Cash Credit Limit For Food Grains
WHITE PAPER State Finances
Page | 60
Chapter 3: Liability Of Cash Credit Limit For Food Grains
WHITE PAPER State Finances
LIABILITY OF CASH CREDIT LIMIT FOR FOOD GRAINS Chapter 3
3.0
Punjab is the major contributor of food grains towards Central Pool in the country, contributing about 40% of the nation's requirement. Procurement of more than 250 Lakh metric tonnes of food grains is undertaken in Punjab through State Procuring Agencies and FCI every year.
3.1
In Punjab, Wheat & Paddy is procured in a short span of
“…The procurement
about 30 days during the season in about 1800 mandi
of wheat and paddy is
yards. Processed rice is delivered in a time span of about
made under Price
4-5 months from about 3200 rice millers in the State. The
Support Scheme
procurement of wheat and paddy is made under Price
(MSP) of
Support Scheme (MSP) of Government of India and the
Government of India
finances for carrying out the same are made available by
and the finances for
way of Cash Credit Limit authorized by Reserve Bank of
carrying out the same
India through State Bank of India and the consortium
are made available by
bankers. State Government procures food grains through
way of Cash Credit
its five State Procuring Agencies (SPAs), on behalf of
Limit authorized by
Government of India.
Reserve Bank of India through State
3.2
Before the start of every procurement season, a
Bank of India and the
“provisional cost sheet” is issued by Department of Food &
consortium
Public Distribution (DFPD), Government of India, based on
bankers...”
norms introduced first by Department of Food & Public Distribution, Government of India in 2003, on the basis of which FCI makes payment of delivered food grains to State Procuring Agencies.
Page | 61
Chapter 3: Liability Of Cash Credit Limit For Food Grains
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…Government of
3.3
India used to
The Provisional Cost Sheet comprises items such as MSP, Statutory
reimburse the actual
Charges
Transportation
expenditures on
&
and
Taxes,
Handling
Labour
Charges,
Charges,
Custody
&
Maintenance Charges, Interest Charges, Milling Charges,
procurement
Administrative Charges and Cost of Gunny Bags. However,
incidentals in lumpsum manner and
the actual costs incurred by the SPAs during procurement
never used to call for
operations, except MSP & Statutory Charges and Taxes,
the audited
are invariably more than what is provided for in the
accounts...”
provisional cost sheets. Each crop's provisional cost sheet is required to be finalized on the basis of audited Final Accounts of the SPAs. The actual procurement expenses incurred by SPAs, except MSP, Statutory Charges & Milling Charges, are partially reimbursed by the FCI based on the provisional cost sheet issued by the Government of India. The payment of actual Procurement Expenses is made by SPAs from the CCL account only, as the SPAs have no other source of funds for procurement operations. 3.4
Prior to 2003-04, Government of India used to reimburse the actual expenditures on procurement incidentals in lumpsum. However, from 2003-04 onwards it was decided that the difference between the actual expenditure and provisional cost sheet would be reimbursed on the submission of audited accounts duly audited by statutory auditors and CAG. Since the lifting of the food grains by the FCI procured by the SPAs used to take 2 to 3 years, as such the audited accounts could not be submitted to Government of India. However, the duly audited accounts of 2003-04 were submitted to Government of India from 2009 onwards in a phased manner and Government of India started processing such accounts from 2011.
Page | 62
Chapter 3: Liability Of Cash Credit Limit For Food Grains
WHITE PAPER State Finances
3.5
It is pertinent to note that in-spite of settling the accounts as per the audited expenses, the Government of India did not reimburse the entire claim of expenses
“…The gap between the outstanding CCL and the stocks in hand has been
incurred on procurement of food grains by the State
increasing gradually
Procuring Agencies. Due to non-reimbursement of the
in the past…”
actual expenses of each crop, the gap has been increasing with the application of compounded interest, besides non-settlement of other critical issues. The State Government did not make any budgetary provision for adjustment of such a gap, which has now been made by the State during KMS 2015-16, whereby the State has deposited `926 crore for the adjustment of KMS 2015-16 accounts. The gap between the outstanding CCL and the stocks in hand has been increasing gradually in the past. The current Bank outstanding as on 31.3.2017 in the Food Credit Account (without taking into account the available stocks of food grains with SPAs) is `29919.96 crore. 3.6
For arrangement of funds for procurement operations, the State Government approaches the RBI for authorization of Cash Credit limit, to be availed through SBI, which is the lead bank of the Food Credit Consortium. The CCL and interest accrued thereon should in the normal course be fully adjusted as and when food grains are lifted by the Food Corporation of India and its reimbursement is made by them. However, no account could be shown to be fully adjusted after the delivery of grains to FCI of the same crop since inception up to 2014-15 (i.e. the Legacy period).
Page | 63
Chapter 3: Liability Of Cash Credit Limit For Food Grains
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…The provisional
3.7
cost sheet never
It is also an admitted fact that the accounts of the previous crop accounts used to be adjusted by the
matched the actual
Bank from the receipts of the next crop CCL, leaving
expenses incurred by
gap holes in adjustment of the current crop account,
the State for the
and this cycle has unfortunately continued for the
procurement of
period of the legacy accounts. As a result, it was never
concerned crop…“
clear either to the SPAs or the Bank as to the adjustment of that particular crop year, as inflows of future crop seasons used to be appropriated by the Banks to adjust interest accumulations of previous year accounts, and no attempt was made by the Bank/ Government of India, which releases the provisional cost sheet for each crop, to clear the accounts of a particular Food season for which CCL was sanctioned. The provisional cost sheet never matched the actual expenses incurred by the State for the procurement of concerned crop. Even the method of ‘valuation of stocks’ issued by the Reserve Bank of India is not accurate and requires amendments. On this subject, State Government has taken up the matter with Government of India from time to time, but no change in the valuation norms has been carried out so far. 3.8
If the reasons for spiraling legacy accounts are analyzed, it becomes evident that it is mainly due to non-rational and faulty Principles of Procurement Incidentals, leading to a huge gap on account of difference in rates in provisional cost sheet and the actual expenses, compounded by burgeoning interest, besides some other unresolved issues like:
Page | 64
Chapter 3: Liability Of Cash Credit Limit For Food Grains
WHITE PAPER State Finances
a. Carry over charges on stock in hand; b. Reimbursement of loss suffered by the State agencies on disposal of damaged/ rejected wheat stocks of crop 1995-96 till 2003-04;
“…Nonreimbursement of difference between simple interest paid by the Government of
c. Non-payment of interest on I.D. Cess differential and Purchase Tax;
India in incidental charges, and
d. Interest of delayed payments by FCI and penal interest
compounded interest being charged on
1999-2000 to 2001-2002; e. Non-reimbursement of handling and transport charges on wheat exported directly by the State Agencies; f. Non-reimbursement of losses suffered by the State due to open-market sale of paddy in crop year 1994-95 (as
quarterly /monthly basis from the year 1997-98 to 200001...”
per Government of India instructions); g. Non-reimbursement of difference between simple interest paid by the Government of India in incidental charges, and compounded interest being charged on quarterly /monthly basis from the year 1997-98 to 200001; h. Unilateral deductions carried out by FCI based solely on CAG audit paras of FCI; i. Non-inclusion in the stock Statements of receivables against delivery of food grains, for the purpose of calculation of drawing power of the account; j. Time period involved in finalization of incidental charges as reflected in the Final Cost Sheet; k. Method of valuation of stocks, as per norms fixed by the RBI, leading to a sharp decreased in valuation of balance stock; l. Delay in taking over of the stocks by FCI; m.Delay in movement of stocks by FCI out of the State of Punjab;
Page | 65
Chapter 3: Liability Of Cash Credit Limit For Food Grains
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…The claims of
n. Non-payment of interest on delayed payments by FCI
actual expenses for
even after taking over of stocks.
the year 2003-04 were not submitted to
Government of India till 2009…”
3.9
Historically speaking, the gap in Food Credit Account as on 31-10-2004 was `8160.92 crore. At that time, the Department of Food Supplies, Government of Punjab which was authorized to procure food grain with four other SPAs, stopped procurement of food grains on its own account, so as to avoid the gap in CCL on government account, but the gap in CCL accounts of the procurement agencies continued even after the conversion of `4545 crore of outstanding of the Food Department account from CCL to term loan in the year 2004. The term loan along with interest was regularly repaid by the State Finance Department, but the gap of SPAs continued and has been continuously increasing year after year as the core issues of gap could not be conceptualized and quantified, because the actual implication of change in procurement principles could not be recognized in the absence of final claims. The claims of actual expenses for the year 2003-04 were not submitted to Government of India till 2009 and DFPD, Government of India, started processing these claims in January 2011. The State Government has started submitting claims after completion of the balance
sheets
year
by
year.
However,
the
Government of India did not reimburse the entire expenses and also declined to pay interest which SBI was charging on the difference of actual and provisional expenses.
Page | 66
Chapter 3: Liability Of Cash Credit Limit For Food Grains
WHITE PAPER State Finances
3.10
From RMS 2015-16, the accounts of the Food Credit were ‘ring-fenced’ on the request of Government of Punjab, as to understand the reasons for formation of the seasonal gap. After proper ring-fencing of CCL
“…All the policy issues and pending issues were discussed in detail in the meeting of 5
account, the Government of Punjab was able to
members Joint
showcase the reason and causes of the gap in CCL.
Committee
There was a gap of about `2200 crore in CCL account
constituted by PMO
of KMS 2015-16. Out of `2200 crore, `1100 crore was
on 27.08.2015…”
due to diversion of funds by SBI on account of interest adjustment on previous year CCL accounts, and a gap of about `1100 crore was present on account of the difference in actual expenses and the provisions as contained in the provisional cost sheet issued by DFPD on the basis of extant Principles of Procurement Incidences (PPI) norms. 3.11
Considering the situation, the Government of India advised Government of Punjab to make a budgetary provision for the gap amount so as to stop further increase in gap and to stop the recurring interest burden. Acting on the advice of Government of India, the Finance Department has released an amount of `926 crore to square up the gap in CCL account for KMS 2015-16. Further, the State Finance Department has made a budgetary provision of `1100 crore in the year 2016-17 to temporarily plug any gaps in the KMS 2016-17, so as to avoid interest burden, and ensure repayment to Bank.
3.12
The policy and pending issues were discussed in detail in the meeting of the 5 members Joint Committee constituted by PMO on 27.08.2015, and the Joint Committee gave its report on 22.02.2016.
Page | 67
Chapter 3: Liability Of Cash Credit Limit For Food Grains
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…The problem of
Although the Joint Committee was set up by the PMO,
gap is accentuated
the reports of its recommendations were never sent to
further by interest
the PMO for appraisal or concurrence, even though
accumulation.”
huge liabilities of both the Government of India and Government of Punjab were in contention, and the DFPD proceeded to take suo-moto action on the report at its own level. The Committee had recommended in Chapter 9 of its Report to re-examine some issues of the Government of Punjab. Further, some policy issues were conceded in favour of the State Government, however
the
Committee
observed,
perhaps
erroneously, that at this point of time these issues can be settled with prospective effect only and thus, the problem remained as such. 3.13
It is pertinent to mention that the DFPD has over time partially amended some of the PPIs (Principles of Procurement Incidentals), but many others are still required to be suitably amended as requested by Government of Punjab from time to time. Despite these amendments, the food procurement operations by the SPAs remain a loss making venture/operation. No doubt that State is getting several taxes on procurement of food grains. The difference between the actual costs incurred in procurement operations, and the costs reimbursable as per the PPIs as contained in the Provisional Cost Sheet is the main reason of losses to the State Agencies. The problem of gap is accentuated further by interest accumulation. There is an urgent need for rationalization of PPI so as to ensure equitable reimbursement of actual expenses during food procurement operations.
Page | 68
Chapter 3: Liability Of Cash Credit Limit For Food Grains
WHITE PAPER State Finances
3.14
It may be appraised that the entire burden of settlement of outstanding accounts couldn’t have been put squarely
3.15
on
Punjab
Government
without
any
“….the State Government requested the Government of India
contribution coming from Government of India or the
to extend one time
Banks. However, the previous government accepted
grant-in-aid of
the same, burdening the citizens with a huge debt.
`10000 crore and,
As the procurement season for paddy (KMS 2016-17)
pending settlement of
was arriving and the State Government was finding it
the claims of the
extremely difficult to get CCL from the Banks and to
State agencies.”
keep the procurement operations smooth, the State Government
held detailed discussions
with the
consortium of banks led by SBI and decided to go for short term loan purely as a stop gap arrangement. To sort out the problem in the long run, the State Government requested the Government of India to extend one time grant-in-aid of `10000 crore and, pending settlement of the claims of the State Agencies, the balance will be taken care of State Government by raising money by floating bonds. After detailed round of discussions the following terms and conditions were mutually agreed with the Bank.
Page | 69
Chapter 3: Liability Of Cash Credit Limit For Food Grains
WHITE PAPER State Finances
Tab le 18: Terms o f Ag reement of CCL S r. No.
P aramet er
T erm s of San ct ion
1
Amount
31,000 core (approx. outstanding of the legacy accounts as on dat e of c ommencem ent)
2
Tenure
20 Years
3
Repayment
Equated Half yearly installments, first falling due on 31st Jan 2017 and thereafter at the end of every six months. This was subsequently changed to monthly (EMI)
4
Repayment Frequency/ Installment Amount
Half yearly installment amount including interest and Principal i.e. ` 1615 crore
5
Interest Rate
8.25% p.a. (Fixed ) monthly rests not linked to MCLR
6
Interest Reset
Fixed Rate not linked to MCLR, interest rate if subject to review at the end of each 5 years.
7
Credit Enhancement
(i) Government of Punjab to irrevocably authorize Government of India to deduct, in case Government of Punjab fails to make any payment towards principal or interest on due dates. Such defaulted amount from the net small savings collections or (on share in central taxes and normal central assistance in that order of priority and pay the same to consortium ( ii) Government of Punjab shall also ensure that Government of India issues a Comfort letter to lenders in this regard (iii) In the event of default on the part of Government of Punjab to pay any installment on due date a demand may be made on Government of India under intimate to Government of Punjab for payment of defaulted amount
8
Security Documentation
Suitable security documents to be executed by authorized and empowered official of Government of Punjab. It would be incumbent upon Government of Punjab to secure and obtain all the in-house / legislative approvals in this respect.
9
RBI dispensation
The following one-time consideration would be requested from the Regulators. The exposure will not be treated as Restructured due to – (a) conversion of the existing out standings into clean term loan (b) providing finer pricing Approval would be sought from Government of India regarding the arrangement (credit enhancement)
10
Government of India Approval
11
Government of Punjab Consent
Government of Punjab would make available its unconditional consent to the arrangement, including the credit enhancement proposed, before the disbursement of CTL.
12
Penalty
No penalty would be chargeable for prepayment or accelerated payment of the exposure
13
Pre-Payment
Any Payment received from Government of India/ FCI/ liquidation of stocks will be adjusted for reduction of out standings without impacting the installments which are due and payable. Bank shall have the right to adjust such prepayment in such other manner as decided in the standing committee.
14.
Other Conditions
Government of Punjab Shall Seek fresh disbursement from Banks only after compliance of the above conditions. RBI approval is a pre-condition for the disbursement of CTL
Page | 70
Chapter 3: Liability Of Cash Credit Limit For Food Grains
WHITE PAPER State Finances
3.16
For availing a Clean Term Loan, a request was made to the Government of India for getting necessary approval as per FRBM Act under article 293(3) of Constitution of India. While the necessary approval was
3.17
“…in case Government of Punjab fails to make any payment towards principal or interest of
awaited, in the meantime, State Bank of India submitted
the Clean Term Loan
Clean Term Loan agreement to be signed before the
on due dates, such
31.12.2016 to avoid the slippage of these accounts in
defaulted amount
NPA; the same was signed on 31.12.2016, pending
shall be deducted
approval of Government of India.
from Government of
The Government of India issued its consent on
Punjab’s Share in
02.01.2017 stipulating as follows: “Government of
Central Taxes”
Punjab shall approach Budget Division, Department of Economic Affairs, for executing a tripartite agreement between Government of India and RBI, irrevocably authorizing the Government of India to deduct, in case Government of Punjab fails to make any payment towards principal or interest of the Clean Term Loan on due dates, such defaulted amount shall be deducted from Government of Punjab’s Share in Central Taxes and pay the same to SBI consortium”. 3.18
In compliance of the conditions in the consent, a Tripartite agreement received from the State Bank of India was sent to the Government of India. Further, Government of Punjab made request for amendment in the Terms and Conditions in the Clean Term Loan on 06.01.2017 detailing as follows: a.
Actual amount of disbursement would be about `30583.41 crore against the sanction of `31000 crore. Accordingly the amount of installment may be refixed as per actual amount.
Page | 71
Chapter 3: Liability Of Cash Credit Limit For Food Grains
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…Banks have
b. As the amount of installment is very huge, the installment
agreed for EMI @
on monthly basis instead of half-yearly basis may be
`270 crore and
made. While doing so, due credit may be given to State
converted the legacy
Government due to early payment of installments.
CCL accounts to
c. As the Banking Industry has reduced the lending rate by
Clean Term Loan. As
0.9% after demonetization, the rate of Interest on Clean
regards the reduction
Term Loan was required to be reduced further from
in rate of interest, the
8.25% to 7.35%.
Banks are yet to agree...”
3.19
In this regard, meeting was held with State Bank of India on 21.01.2017 at New Delhi with consortium of Banks, on 27.01.2017 with standing committee of the consortium and Reserve Bank of India for discussion on the request of Government of Punjab. In this meeting consortium of banks agreed to above, subject to the approval of Reserve Bank of India.
3.20
Subsequently, Banks have agreed for EMI @ `270 crore and converted the legacy CCL accounts to Clean Term Loan. As regards the reduction in rate of interest, the Banks are yet to agree.
Page | 72
Chapter 3: Liability Of Cash Credit Limit For Food Grains
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…It is shocking to know that this was done, even without the elementary precaution of going into the reasons for the emergence of
CONCLUSION 3.21
Despite being the granary and food bowl of the nation, the State has been incurring huge losses in procuring food grains on behalf of the Government of India and ensuring food security of the nation. On account of
such a huge gap and
ineffective presentation of the State’s claims by the then
fixing responsibility of
Government, the citizens of the State have been
the concerned
burdened with an additional debt of `29919.96 crore
officials of the state
implying an additional annual debt servicing liability of
procurement
`3240 crore which would have otherwise been used to
agencies. The alacrity
build social and physical infrastructure. It is shocking to
with which this was done not only provided a convenient cover to the various acts of malfeasance,
know that this was done, even without the elementary precaution of going into the reasons for the emergence of such a huge gap and fixing responsibility of the concerned officials of the state procurement agencies.
but the urgency to
The alacrity with which this was done not only provided
recover the due
a convenient cover to the various acts of malfeasance,
amount from the
but the urgency to recover the due amount from the
Government of India
Government of India and the opportunity to strike a fair
and the opportunity to
bargain with them and the banks was also lost. The
strike a fair bargain
then Government also agreed to square-up any gap
with them and the
between the outstanding CCL and value of stock that
banks was also lost…”
might emerge in the future as well. This is against the cardinal principle of the Centralized Procurement Scheme that the State Procuring Agencies being agents of the Government of India are neither to make any profit nor to incur any loss in the procurement operations and the Government of India is expected to reimburse all bona fide cost of procurement incurred by them.
Page | 73
Chapter 3: Liability Of Cash Credit Limit For Food Grains
WHITE PAPER State Finances
Page | 74
Chapter 4: Financial Burden On Account Of Uday Scheme
WHITE PAPER State Finances
FINANCIAL BURDEN ON ACCOUNT OF UDAY SCHEME
Chapter 4
Page | 75
Chapter 4: Financial Burden On Account Of Uday Scheme
WHITE PAPER State Finances
Page | 76
Chapter 4: Financial Burden On Account Of Uday Scheme
WHITE PAPER State Finances
FINANCIAL BURDEN ON ACCOUNT OF UDAY SCHEME Chapter 4
UJWAL DISCOM ASSURANCE YOJANA (UDAY) 4.0
Ministry of Power, Government of India notified a scheme for financial turnaround of power distribution companies (DISCOMs) in 2015 with an objective to improve the operational and financial efficiency of the State DISCOMs.
“…The Borrowings
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) amongst Ministry of
made by the state to
Power, Government of India, Government of Punjab and
takeover PSPCL debt
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) was
during 2015-16 and
signed on 04.03.2016, containing the following:
2016-17 shall be
a. Out of the total outstanding debt of PSPCL of
utilized by Government of Punjab solely for the purpose of
`20837.68 crore on 30.09.2015, state was to take over `15628.26 crore (75% of total debt on 30.09.2015) in two years i.e. 50% of the outstanding debt (`10418.84
discharging the
crore) in 2015-16 and 25% of the outstanding debt
PSPCL debt and
(`5209.42 crore) in 2016-17. For the remaining 25% of
transfer to PSPCL as
debt (`5209.42 crore), PSPCL shall fully/partially issue
a mix of grant, loan or
State Government guaranteed bonds or get them
equity…”
converted by Banks/FIs into loans or bonds with interest not more than Banks base rate plus 0.1%. b. The Borrowings made by the state to takeover PSPCL debt during 2015-16 and 2016-17 shall be utilized by Government of Punjab solely for the purpose of discharging the PSPCL debt and transfer to PSPCL as a mix of grant, loan or equity as described in the following table.
Page | 77
Chapter 4: Financial Burden On Account Of Uday Scheme
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…the rate of interest at which state shall be issuing Bonds for
Table 19: PSPCL debt and transfer to PSPCL (` Crore) Year
Total Debt Taken Over
1
50% of the total debt
10418.84
10418.84
2
25% of the total debt
5209.42
15628.26
discharge of PSPCL's debt shall be less by
Transfer to Punjab PSPCL in the form of Grant
Transfer to Punjab PSPCL in the form of Loan
about 3 – 3.5% from the rate of interest of PSPCL's existing debt...”
Transfer to Punjab PSPCL in the form of Equity
Outstand ing State Loan of Punjab PSPCL
3
15628.26
4
15628.26
5
11728.26
3900.00
Source: (PSPCL)
c. PSPCL shall be saving only on account of reduced interest rate up to 2019-20 as the rate of interest at which state shall be issuing Bonds for discharge of PSPCL's debt shall be less by about 3 – 3.5% from the rate of interest of PSPCL's existing debt. The expected savings on account of interest till 2019-20 is expected to be around `600 crore per annum. However, from the year 2020-21, the saving on account of interest to PSPCL shall be more as the entire loan of `15628.26 crore will be converted into grant and equity. d. PSPCL is required to undertake certain measures to reduce its AT&C losses to 14%
Page | 78
Chapter 4: Financial Burden On Account Of Uday Scheme
WHITE PAPER State Finances
e. All outstanding dues from the State Government departments to PSPCL for supply of electricity shall be paid by 30.03.2016. 4.1
“…It is mentioned that interest payment will be paid by the state government even for
Accordingly, Government of Punjab has issued Punjab
the first four years...”
Special Bonds amounting to `15628.26 crore during 2015-16 & 2016-17. 4.2
PSPCL shall pay interest to the Government of Punjab on the outstanding loan in a financial year at the rate at which the Government issued non–SLR bonds up to 2019-20. However, Government of Punjab will make the payment of interest and principal after 2019-20.
4.3
Further, a back to back agreement has been signed by Government of Punjab with PSPCL under which PSPCL
will
pay
the
interest
and
principal
to
Government of Punjab after the financial year 2019-20. 4.4
As regards the balance `5209.42 crore (25% of outstanding debt of `20837.68 crore of PSPCL as on 30.09.2015), PSPCL was to issue Government Guaranteed DISCOM Bonds. Government of Punjab approved providing for State Government guarantee for issue of Bonds amounting to `5209.42 crore including interest thereon subject to a cap of 10% on rate of interest and on the terms specified by Finance Department of Government of Punjab.
PSPCL has
invited bids for issue of DISCOM Bonds, but no response has been received in this regard. 4.5
It is mentioned that interest payment will be paid by the State Government even for the first four years but the same would be adjusted out of subsidy payable to PSPCL. Annual liability on an average is `1300 crore in initial 5 years and `2800 crore during next 5 years
Page | 79
Chapter 4: Financial Burden On Account Of Uday Scheme
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…The interest burden on account of the floating of these
or so and about `1200 crore in next 5 years. 4.6
Punjab Government has floated UDAY bonds of the order of `15628.26 crore in March/April 2016 on the
bonds has already been added to the
directions of Government of India. The interest burden
burden of State
on account of the floating of these bonds has already
Government...”
been added to the burden of State Government. This, along with the financial burden of servicing of interest on the bonds to be raised for settlement of outstanding CCL accounts, is likely to be huge. In addition, there will also be liability towards repayment of principal amount of both UDAY bonds as well as CCL bonds. 4.7
It must be mentioned that PSPCL has been running into losses from its very inception. It made nominal profits only for 3 years, from the year 2012-13 to 2014-15 and again slipped into losses during the year 2015-16. It suffered losses of `1695 crore during the year 2015-16 and has accumulated losses of `3196 crore as on 31.03.2016. The debt profile and statement of interest payments is mentioned in Annexure IV.
CONCLUSION 4.8
Accumulation of interest burden on account UDAY Bonds along with servicing of interest on the bonds raised for the settlement of CCL account, together has led to further increase the burden of State’s committed liabilities. This huge debt liability, pre-empt significant resources of the State.
Page | 80
Chapter 4: Financial Burden On Account Of Uday Scheme
WHITE PAPER State Finances
PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS
Chapter 5
Page | 81
Chapter 5: Public Sector Undertakings
WHITE PAPER State Finances
Page | 82
Chapter 5: Public Sector Undertakings
WHITE PAPER State Finances
PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS Chapter 5
5.0
There are 55 (29 Boards + 26 Corporations) Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) of Punjab Government. In addition, there are some Co-Operative Apex Institutions and Authorities such as MARKFED, SUGARFED, MILKFED, HOUSEFED, Punjab State Co-operative Bank, Punjab State Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank, in which
“…The total amount
Punjab Government has stake in form of equity or debt. The
of equity in these
total amount of equity in these PSUs and Cooperative Apex
PSUs and
Institutions is `8234.30 crore. The total amount of
Cooperative Apex
outstanding Government loans of these entities is
Institutions is
`17030.92
`8234.30 crore…”
crore.
The
outstanding
loans
of
other
Institutions were `22593.95 crore, and loans of `20608.17 crore was outstanding against Government guarantee. In
“…loans of
case of default, it is the bounden duty of the State
`20608.17 crore was
Government to repay these loans to the lenders (Annexure
outstanding against
V, VI & VII).
Government guarantee…”
5.1
The State Government had decided that the PSUs and Apex Co-operative Institutions should give at least a modest return of 5% on the equity invested by the State Government. However, none of the PSUs except Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation, CONWARE, Punjab State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. and Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank have paid any return up to 31.03.2016.
Page | 83
Chapter 5: Public Sector Undertakings
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…The cumulative
The Government received only a small amount of `4.01
losses of the
crore during the year 2015-16 as dividend on a huge
Corporation are
investment of `8234.30 crore in these PSUs and Co-
`386.94 crore
operative Institutions.
(provisional) up to 2015-16. The
5.2
The finances of some of the major Public Sector
financial position of
Undertakings of the Government, namely PRTC, PSIDC,
PRTC is so weak that
MARKFED, PUNSUP, PAIC, PUNGRAIN, PSWC, PFC,
it is not even able to
SUGARFED and PUDA are analyzed below.
fully pay the taxes...”
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (PRTC) 5.3
PEPSU Road Transport Corporation (PRTC) is a Public Sector Undertaking which was set up in 1956 and at present has a fleet of 1056 buses. Government of Punjab has invested `307.08 crore as Equity Share Capital and has also given loan to PRTC, out of which `23.75 crore is outstanding as on 28.02.2017. PRTC is suffering from chronic losses. The average losses of PRTC ranged between `7 crore to `15 crore from the year 2005-06 to 2015-16. The cumulative losses of the Corporation are `386.94 crore (provisional) up to 2015-16. The financial position of PRTC is so weak that it is not even able to fully pay the taxes that it collects and is liable to transfer to the State Government. As on 31.3.2017, it has pending arrears of `197.62 crore to be paid to the State on this account only.
Page | 84
Chapter 5: Public Sector Undertakings
WHITE PAPER State Finances
PUNJAB
STATE
INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD. (PSIDC)
“…PSIDC was unable to service the debt it had incurred as part of its operations the
5.3
Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Limited
Government had
(PSIDC) was incorporated in 1966 to act as a catalyst for
given guarantee(s) to
the development of large and medium scale industries in
the Corporation for
Punjab. In 1976, PSIDC was also declared as a second
raising funds through
state level financial institution under the Refinance Scheme
private placement of
of IDBI/SIDBI. The Corporation thus combined in itself the
bonds and interest
role of Institutional promoter & investor, term lender and
payments thereof...”
Facilitator for Mega Project. Since PSIDC was unable to service the debt it had incurred as part of its operations, the Government had given guarantee(s) to the Corporation for raising funds through private placement of bonds and interest payments thereof. The total bonds of `1717.38 crore were raised out of which `606.46 crore are outstanding on account of principal and `125.10 crore is outstanding on account of interest on these bonds as on 31.03.2017. Out of the outstanding principal of `606.46 crore, `324.20 crore is due for the payment as on 31.03.2017 and PSIDC is not able to pay the due principal amount of bonds. 5.4
The Corporation had been making profits till the year 199495.
Thereafter, the Corporation slipped into losses. It
suffered loss of `14.07 crore during the year 2015-16. The accumulated losses of the Corporation as on 31st March, 2016 are `707.83 crore, thereby wiping off its entire net worth. The reasons for the losses are mainly lower recovery of interest dues, scheduled disinvestments not taking place and high financial charges on account of interest on bonds.
Page | 85
Chapter 5: Public Sector Undertakings
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…If PSIDC fails to come out of the
5.6
As on 31.03.2017, PSIDC is a defaulter in the repayment of bonds aggregating `324.20 crore and interest of
present situation, the
`125.10 crore on these Bonds. Apart from this, PSIDC has
due/outstanding principal and interest
also not paid guarantee fee of `26.63 crore as well as
amount of Bonds
stamp duty of `8.62 crore. The Corporation has received
secured by
legal notices from about 42 companies, out of which 6
Government
companies have already filed suit before Hon’ble Punjab &
guarantee of about
Haryana High Court for recovery of their dues and winding
`731 crore shall
up of the Corporation. The above mentioned liabilities of
devolve on the State
PSIDC are in dangerous zone. The bonds and the interest
Government further
thereon are guaranteed by the State Government. If PSIDC
straining its
fails
precarious
to
come
out
of
the
present
situation,
the
due/outstanding principal and interest amount of Bonds
finances...”
secured by Government guarantee of about `731 crore shall devolve on the State Government further straining its precarious finances.
PUNGRAIN 5.7
PUNGRAIN
was
established
in
March,
2003
for
procurement of Food Grains (Wheat & Paddy) for Central/State Pool. State government has invested `1.05 crore in PUNGRAIN in the form of equity. PUNGRAIN has raised `164.65 crore as loans from banks. Loans to the tune of `6813.05 crore raised against Government Guarantee are outstanding as on 28.02.17. Due to partial reimbursement of incidental Charges by FCI, PUNGRAIN is suffering heavy losses. The losses for the year 2014-15 amounted to `370.76 crore and the accumulated losses of PUNGRAIN as on 31.03.15 are `2312.19 crore.
Page | 86
Chapter 5: Public Sector Undertakings
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…The accumulated
PUNJAB FINANCIAL CORPORATION (PFC) 5.8
Punjab Financial Corporation
was
losses of PFC as on
incorporated
on
01.02.1953 under the State Financial Corporations Act 1951, with the main objective to grant loans for the
31.03.2016 are `268.35 crore. PFC is a defaulter in the repayment of `123.15
establishment of new micro, small & medium scale
crore on account of
industrial units, modernization, expansion/ diversification of
Bonds and interest
existing units in the State of Punjab. Punjab Government
thereon. The bonds
holds `29.31 crore Equity Share Capital of PFC, out of total
and the interest
equity of `40.39 crore. Loan given by Punjab Government
thereon are
to PFC amounting to `16.53 crore is outstanding as on
guaranteed by the
31.03.2016. State Government stands as a guarantor to the Bonds of `250 crore issued by PFC. The outstanding amount of Bonds on account of principal is `172.26 crore
State Government. If PFC fails to come out of the present situation, the
and `23.66 crore is outstanding as interest on these
due/outstanding
Bonds. Due to decline in the growth of industries in Punjab,
principal and interest
high cost of borrowings, loss of interest due to sacrifice of
amount of Bonds
interest on various OTS policies of State Government, the
secured by
Corporation is running into losses, resulting into weak
Government
financial health of PFC. The accumulated losses of PFC as
guarantee shall
on 31.03.2016 are `268.35 crore. PFC is a defaulter in the repayment of `123.15 crore on account of Bonds and interest thereon. The bonds and the interest thereon are
devolve on the State Government further burdening its stressed finances…”
guaranteed by the State Government. If PFC fails to come out of the present situation, the due/outstanding principal and interest amount of Bonds secured by Government guarantee shall devolve on the State Government further burdening its stressed finances.
Page | 87
Chapter 5: Public Sector Undertakings
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…During the year 2015-16, SUGARFED suffered the losses to the tune of `259.62
SUGARFED 5.9
The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited (SUGARFED) was established in 1966 under the
crore and the
Punjab State Cooperative Societies Act 1961. Its objective
accumulated losses
were: to assist in the promotion & organization of Sugar
as on 31.03.2016
Mills, facilitate and coordinate the working of Cooperative
amounted to
Sugar Mills in the State of Punjab; provide technical
`1214.50 crore...”
knowhow and other aspects in the selection of man power, purchase, installation and maintenance of plant & machinery and other equipment including expansion proposal, cogeneration and downstream Industrialization; assist sugar mills in securing the financial assistance from the State Government or Central Government or from other ‘Financial Institutions’; and purchase or assist in purchase of bulk gunny bags, Sulphur, limestone, lubricants, chemicals, spares and stores required by the sugar mills for their use and for the use of their ancillary units and allied industries. 5.10
Punjab Government holds equity share capital of `138.48 crore in the SUGARFED, and has also given loan of `1139.29 crore to SUGARFED. During the year 2016-17, a loan of `51.31 crore (`45.99 crore principal + `5.32 crore interest) of Bhogpur CSM was also converted into share capital. SUGARFED has also raised `157.46 crore as loan from Rural Development Fund, MARKFED, and PUDA. Due to overstaffing in sugar mills, under procurement of sugarcane, sale of sugar at lower prices and low revenue for high priced inputs, SUGARFED is running into losses.
Page | 88
Chapter 5: Public Sector Undertakings
WHITE PAPER State Finances
During the year 2015-16, SUGARFED suffered the losses to the tune of `259.62 crore and the accumulated losses as on 31.03.2016 amounted to `1214.50 crore. Due to poor financial health of the Cooperative Sugar Mills, mills
loans raised by PUDA from banks other than Government Guarantee is `545.00
are not in a position to the pay loans taken and hence
crore out of which
default has been made in repayment of `710.97 crore on
`486.66 crore is
account of principal and interest.
outstanding as on 28.02.2017...”
PUDA 5.11
“…The amount of
Punjab Urban Development Planning & Development Authority was constituted w.e.f 01.07.1995 under the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act 1995 with the objective to promote and secure better planning and development of any area of the State. Government has given guarantee amounting to `2124.93 crore, out of which outstanding guarantee as on 31.03.2017 is `1413.49 crore.This includes loan of `2000 crore raised by PUDA on behalf of the State Government, monthly installments of which are being funded by State Government out of the budget. The amount of loans raised from banks other than Government Guarantee is `545 crore, out of which `486.66 crore is outstanding as on 28.02.2017.
5.12
The regularization charges to the tune of approximately `400 crore were not used for long and then subsequently out of these, funds to the tune of `250 crore to be spent on the up gradation of these colonies were also got deposited into the State treasury as a short term loan thus leaving hardly any margin for the authorities to undertake development functions. The details of major PSUs is given at Annexures VIII – XVIII.
Page | 89
Chapter 5: Public Sector Undertakings
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…MARKFED suffered a loss amounting to
`394.87 crore during the year 2015-16 and have accumulated losses amounting to
`1654.25 crore as on
MARKFED
5.13
The Punjab State Co-op Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. known as “MARKFED” was registered in 1954. Punjab Government has an investment of `21.06 crore in the Share capital of MARKFED, and has given guarantee amounting to `27782.77 crore out of which `7219.81 crore
31.03.2016. Clearly,
is outstanding as on 28.02.2017, for its operations. Apart
this apex cooperative
from this, MARKFED also owes `1139.99 crore to financial
institution is suffering
institutions on account of loans (not secured by
from financial ills...”
Government Guarantee). MARKFED was making profits till 2010-11 but slipped into losses from 2011-12 onwards. MARKFED suffered a loss amounting to `394.87 crore during the year 2015-16 and have accumulated losses amounting to `1654.25 crore as on 31.03.2016. Clearly, this apex cooperative institution is suffering from financial ills. PUNJAB
STATE
CIVIL
SUPPLIES
CORPORATION
LIMITEDNSUP) 5.14 The Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, popularly known as PUNSUP, incorporated on February 14, 1974, as a wholly owned Government Company with `3.73 crore Equity Share Capital of Punjab Government. The Government has given a Guarantee of `30185.70 crore to PUNSUP out of which `8685.83 crore are outstanding as on 28.02.2017. PUNSUP was making negligible profits till 2013-14 and slipped into Losses in the year 2014-15 adding to its accumulated losses which amounts to `1532.79 crore as on 31.03.2016. Apart from the loans raised against Government Guarantee, PUNSUP
Page | 90
Chapter 5: Public Sector Undertakings
WHITE PAPER State Finances
has also taken several loans from the Banks, out of which `1493.25 crore are outstanding as on 28.02.2017. PUNJAB AGRO FOOD GRAINS CORPORATION LIMITED 5.15
Punjab Agro Food Grains Corporation Limited was incorporated on 8th of July, 2002 to take up the activities relating to food grain, minerals, metals, fertilizers, chemical
“…the corporation was forced to divert funds of `52.34 crore to Atta Dal Scheme, whereas the same were to be spent by the State Government...”
pesticides etc.. Guarantee amounting to `12316.94 crore has been issued to the corporation out of which `5292.71 crore are outstanding as on 28.02.2017. The accumulated losses of the corporation, as on 31.03.2016 are `152.26 crore (approximately). Outstanding loans from the financial institutions (not covered by the Government Guarantee) amount to `418.74 crore as on 28.02.2017. PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION 5.16
The Warehousing Corporations Act, 1952, a Government of India Act provides for the incorporation and regulation of State Warehousing Corporations with an objective of warehousing of agricultural produce and other notified commodities. The Government of Punjab, Department of Agriculture notified the establishment of the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (PSWC) w.e.f. 01.11.1967 for the above said purposes.
5.17
The corporation has been undertaking its core activity of warehousing and in addition procurement of food grains and implementation of the Atta Dal Scheme. It was forced to divert funds of `52.34 crore to Atta Dal Scheme, whereas the same were to be spent by the State Government.
Page | 91
Chapter 5: Public Sector Undertakings
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…The State Government belatedly
5.18
The Government of India, Ministry of Food circulated PEG (Private
nominated
Entrepreneurs
Guarantee)
Scheme’
2008
earmarking creation of 71.25 LMT covered capacity in the
PUNGRAIN
State of Punjab through the private entrepreneurs. The
(incorporated by the Department of Food
policy prescribed the State Warehousing Corporations as
& Supplies) as the
the Nodal Agency of the respective States for the said
Nodal Agency in 2011
purpose of developing the covered capacities. But the
in contravention of
State of Punjab, against the said policy, delayed the
the Allocation of
finalization of the Nodal agency till up to 2011 thereby
Business Rules,
seriously impeding the implementation of the scheme.
2007...”
5.19
The Government of India, due to the lackadaisical attitude of the State Govt, withdrew 20 LMT allotted capacity of the State of Punjab and transferred the same to other States, thus reducing the share of Punjab to 51.25 LMTs which adversely affected the covered storage capacity on one hand and resulted in Open Storage of food grains on the other hand. The State Government belatedly nominated PUNGRAIN (incorporated by the Department of Food & Supplies) as the Nodal Agency in 2011 in contravention of the Allocation of Business Rules, 2007 i.e. Item No.13 under Rule-2 “Storage and Warehousing of Food grains including small size facility of storage and warehousing at farm level and assessment of storage capacity for storage of food grains to be procured by the Department of Food and Supplies and other Agencies” which is in the purview of Department of Agriculture through PSWC.
Page | 92
Chapter 5: Public Sector Undertakings
WHITE PAPER State Finances
5.20
The Government of India allocated silos creation @20 LMTs throughout the country in 2012 with a 30 year guarantee and 20% VGF. The State of Punjab was allocated 4 LMT out of this. In addition, the Government of Punjab on 20.05.2015, declared PSWC as the Nodal
PUNGRAIN without awaiting the report of the subcommittee of the Ministers and without any approval
Agency for the creation of 15 LMT silos in the State. The
and guarantee for silo
tenders for 8 sites were finalized by PSWC and it was in
capacity utilization
the advanced stages of grant of Letter of Intent when the
from FCI, proceeded
Department of Food and Supplies vide its letter dated
ahead with the
16.09.2015 restrained PSWC to proceed further in the
creation of silo
matter and the Government constituted a sub-Committee
capacity against the
of Ministers comprising Hon’ble Ministers of Food and Civil
Allocation of Business
Supplies, Finance and Agriculture for finalizing a uniform policy for Silo creation in the State. Subsequently, another committee was constituted on 25.02.2016 under the chairmanship of Hon’ble Deputy CM but the committee 5.21
“…Surprisingly,
rules. The haphazard creation of silo capacity by PUNGRAIN without any uniform policy
failed to submit any report.
and study of existing
Resultantly, PSWC was constrained to annul the tendering
storage capacities of
process. Surprisingly, PUNGRAIN without awaiting the
all agencies may
report of the subcommittee of the Ministers and without any
affect present
approval and guarantee for silo capacity utilization from
utilization of storage
FCI, proceeded ahead with the creation of silo capacity
capacities of State
against the Allocation of Business rules. The haphazard
Procuring agencies
creation of silo capacity by PUNGRAIN without any uniform policy and study of existing storage capacities of all agencies may affect present utilization of storage
(SPAs) resulting in financial loss to SPAs...”
capacities of State Procuring agencies (SPAs) resulting in financial loss to SPAs.
Page | 93
Chapter 5: Public Sector Undertakings
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“..The funds of the SPSEs have thus either not been used for the mandated
CONCLUSION 5.22
Thus, the key objective of establishing PSUs is being breached with the fact that on one hand the State is losing
purpose or diverted
on the return on investment with the meagre earning of
for works beyond
R4.01 crore dividend and at the same time unnecessarily
their jurisdiction...”
increasing the burden on the citizens of the State in the shape of Guarantees being given to these inefficient and loss making entities. 5.23
The funds of the State Public Sector Enterprises (SPSEs) have thus either not been used for the mandated purpose or diverted for works beyond their jurisdiction.
Page | 94
Chapter 5: Public Sector Undertakings
WHITE PAPER State Finances
OFF BUDGET FUNDS
Chapter 6
Page | 95
Chapter 6: Off Budget Funds
WHITE PAPER State Finances
Page | 96
Chapter 6: Off Budget Funds
WHITE PAPER State Finances
OFF BUDGET FUNDS Chapter 6
6.0
As per Article 266 of the Constitution of India, all loans raised by State Government by issuing of Treasury bill, loans or ways & means advances and all moneys received by the State Government for repayment of loans, shall form the Consolidated Fund of the State.
6.1
There are a number of State Agencies including many
“…The total receipt of
boards and societies, which have been authorized from
these Organizations
time to time to collect funds in the form of fees and cess
for the last 5 years
directly and retain the collections in the bank accounts
have been in the
bypassing the Consolidated Fund of the state. These
range of `2473 crore
Organizations include Punjab Rural Development Board,
to `5224 crore
Punjab Municipal Infrastructure Development Company,
whereas the
Punjab Infrastructure Development Board, PLRS, ETTSA
expenditure has been
etc. The total receipt of these Organizations for the last 3
in the range of `3724
years has been in the range of `4234 crore to `6782 crore
crore to `5061
whereas the expenditure has been in the range of `5026
crore…”
crore to `8625 crore (Table 20 & 21). These off Budget funds have had a tremendous impact on the liquidity position of the state treasury thereby jeopardizing its efforts to mobilize funds under various schemes from the Government of India. 6.2
The
Receipts
and
Expenditure
of
these
Boards/Funds/Societies for the year 2014-15 to 2016-17 are given at Table 20.
Page | 97
Chapter 6: Off Budget Funds
WHITE PAPER State Finances
Table 20: Receipts and Expenditure of Boards/Funds/Societies - 2014-15 to 2016-17 (` crore) SN
1 2 3 4 5 6
Name of Fund
Recei pt
PIDB PMF PEDB PMIDC PLDB PRDB TOTAL
1177 1490 219 159 16 1173 4234
2014-15 Expen Surplu diture s/(Sho rtfall) 2131 1476 173 165 8 1073 5026
Recei pt
2015-16 Expendi ture
2636 1440 150 143 17 1217 5603
2165 1450 118 141 44 1104 5022
-954 14 46 -6 8 100 -792
Surplu s/(Sho rtfall)
Receipt
471 -10 32 2 -27 113 581
2193 1569 79 165 17 2759 6782
2016-17 Expen Surplus diture /(Shortf all) 4167 1565 79 131 34 2649 8625
-1974 4 0 34 -17 110 -1843
Source: (Concerned Boards/Funds/Societies)
Table 21: Receipts and Expenditures of some of the Societies - 2016-17 (` crore) SN. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Name of the Society Punjab State Transport Society Punjab State Media Society (Punmedia) Punjab Land Records Society Punjab State Fisheries Development Board Society for Promotion of Shrimp Farming in Punjab Punjab Live Stock Development Board Excise and Taxation Technical Services Agency (ETTSA) Punjab Information and Communication Technology Punjab Zoos Development Society Punjab State Child Protection Society Punjab State E-Governance Society
Total
Revenue
Expenditure 55.00 10.06 88.24 3.28
36.23 8.15 111.00 0.82
0.00
2.93
17.28 21.27
34.23 86.88
0.14
0.10
3.12 0.53 1.03 199.95
2.13 --1.60 284.07
Source: (Concerned Societies)
Page | 98
Chapter 6: Off Budget Funds
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…It is observed that
SOCIETIES
yearly receipts and expenditure do not
6.3
match, they may be
There are three big spending societies floated by the Department of Transport (Punjab State Transport Society),
either accumulating
the Department of Revenue (Punjab Land Records Society)
funds in their corpus
and the Department of Excise and Taxation (Excise and
fund or spending out
Taxation Technical Services Agency). Ostensibly, these are
of it…”
Societies registered under the Registration of Societies Act, 1908, with the stated objective of implementing egovernance in the Transport Department, Computerization of Land Records and Registration Documents and Computerization of the Excise and Taxation department. Their sources of revenue are fees and user charges, which are retained by the societies and deposited in their respective bank accounts. 6.4
It is observed that yearly receipts and expenditure of these Societies do not match (Table 22). They may be either accumulating funds in their corpus fund or spending out of it (Table 22). Their functions are no different from the functions of the concerned departments and should be legitimately performed by them and the funds provided for the same in the State Budget.
Table 22: Receipts and Expenditure of Societies for 2014-15 to 2016-17 (` crore) Sr. No.
Name of Society
Receipts
Expenditure
1
Punjab State Transport Society
206.20
144.11
2
Punjab Land records Society
277.68
345.13
3
Excise and Taxation Technical Services Agency (ETTSA)
161.87
130.58
Source: (Concerned Societies)
Page | 99
Chapter 6: Off Budget Funds
WHITE PAPER State Finances
PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD (PIDB) 6.5
The State Government in the Department of Finance notified creation of Punjab Infrastructure Development Board in 1998 for overall planning and infrastructure
6.6
“…The previous Government amended the PIDB Act from time to time and diluted the role of the Board from taking
development across various infrastructure sector.
to major projects to
The 1998 Act was repealed with more comprehensive
the smallest of the
Punjab Infrastructure (Development & Regulation) Act
projects…”
2002 to provide for the partnership of private and public sectors, participation of private sector in the development, operation and maintenance of infrastructure facilities and development and maintenance of infrastructure facilities through financial sources other than those provided by the State budget by following modern project management systems and for matter connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Board was mandated to take up flagship projects in the State and attract Private sector participation across various Infrastructure sectors. 6.7
The previous Government amended the PIDB Act from time to time and diluted the role of the Board from undertaking major projects to the smallest of the projects, which
were
inconsequential
for
the
infrastructure
development of the State, and didn’t create resource generating assets. 6.8
A major amendment in the Act which led to the dilution of the role of the Board in the year 2015-16 was that the role of conceptualization, identification, execution & monitoring of the projects was given to District Infrastructure Committees whereas such decisions were earlier taken at the level of the State's Administrative Departments and the Executive Committee of PIDB.
Page | 100 Funds
Chapter 6: Off Budget
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…the expenditure exceeds the income
6.9
On perusal of income and expenditure statement of last 10 years as given in Table 23, it can be seen that the
in six out of ten years
expenditure exceeds the income, in 6 out of 10 years
during the previous
during the previous Government regime.
Government regime…”
Table 23: Income & Expenditure of PIDB (` crore) Financial Year
Income
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Grand Total
Expenditure
219.76 620.70 741.95 694.94 687.38 1304.37 1191.36 1177.38 2635.96 2203.30 11477.10
319.76 552.80 777.16 1066.69 1452.08 647.25 692.59 2130.96 2164.64 4194.26 13998.19
Excess of Expenditure over income (-) 100.00 (-) 35.21 (-) 371.75 (-) 764.70 (-) 953.58 (-) 1990.96
Source: (PIDB)
6.10
To meet with this shortfall, debt was raised by the Board, from time to time as detailed below by escrowing the future receipts of the Board.
Table 24: Detail of debt raised by PIDB (` crore) Particulars
Financial year
Amount of debt
Bonds
2007-08
649.93
Bonds
2008-09
900.03
Term Loans from Banks
2015-16
250.49
Term Loans from Banks
2016-17
2922.44
Grand Total
4722.89
Source: (PIDB)
Page | 101 Funds
Chapter 6: Off Budget
WHITE PAPER State Finances
6.11
Even as on date, the outstanding debt of Bonds is `985.89 crore excluding interest which will be re-paid in installments upto to the year 2033-34 (Annexure - XIX). Similarly, the outstanding Bank loan is `2942.60 crore, which will be re-
“…The projects which were funded out of Funds of the Board were largely politically motivated and of little
paid in next five years starting from 2016-17 (Annexure -
consequence to the
XX). As on date, PIDB also has an estimated total
development of the
outstanding project funding liability of `5200 crore
State...”
(approximately). As a result of these borrowings, the Board will not be in a position to fund any new projects during the coming years. Thus, the then Government has usurped the rights of the future generations of the State by escrowing the future income of the Board. 6.12
The projects which were funded out of Funds of the Board were largely politically motivated and of little consequence to the development of the State. `1807.45 crore was allocated for Rural Mission, in which the majorly done projects were re-laying of streets and drains (GaliyanNaliyan) in the villages, linking of Deras with roads by brickwork, construction and repair of dharamshalas and up gradation of cremation grounds, etc. The Department of Rural Development and Panchayats should have done such projects from their budgetary allocations and not from the loan raised by escrowing the present and future receipts of PIDB. Similarly, `2412.29 crore was allocated for Urban Mission in which again major amount was spent on relaying and widening of roads. Again, such projects should have been funded by the Department of Local Government out of its own resources or budgetary allocations, subjecting them to the scrutiny of the State legislature.
Page | 102 Funds
Chapter 6: Off Budget
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…the role of PIDB
6.13
Similarly, funds were allocated for construction of
was reduced to
Memorials amounting to `269 crore & Hop-on-Hop-off
merely being a
Buses and Amphibious Bus of `10.91 crore.
funding agency and the various
6.14
temporary loan to Finance Department amounting to
Departments of the
`1125 crore which was not repaid.
State started meeting their financial
The Board was also made to advance short-term
6.15
The role of PIDB was reduced to merely being a funding
requirements from the
agency and the various Departments of the State started
Board, without
meeting their financial requirements from the Board,
making the projects
without making the projects self-sustainable and financially
self-sustainable and
viable at their own level. These expenditure were neither
financially viable at
presented for the sanction of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha nor
their own level. These
were these subject to the audit of CAG.
expenditure were neither presented for the sanction of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha nor were these subject to the audit of CAG…”
PUNJAB RURAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD (PRDB) 6.16
Punjab Rural Development Board came into existence on 9th April, 1987 under Punjab Rural Development Act, 1987 with
an
objective
to
provide
health,
educational,
infrastructural, facilities in rural areas and to develop better agriculture in rural areas. Punjab Government has issued guarantee of ` 5795.94 crore, out of which `2090.40 crore are outstanding as on 28.02.17. The income of the Board is from Rural Development Fee (RDF) which is levied on ad- valorem basis at the rate of `2/- for every one hundred Rupees in respect of Agricultural Produce, bought or sold in the notified market area. The Board has raised loans for meeting its expenditure by securitizing its future revenues and by agreeing to remit the same to an Escrow Account till the repayment of such loans. Loans amounting to `2090.40 crore are still outstanding. Page | 103 Funds
Chapter 6: Off Budget
WHITE PAPER State Finances
6.17
The following irregularities have been observed in the functioning of the board: a. Funds are being released on adhoc basis without any plan or prioritisation of requirement of rural areas
“…the decisions were unplanned, scattered and against the core mandate of the constitution of Boards
b. Funds are being released without the works being administratively and technically approved.
and also need based assessment was
c. 100% funds are released to the Executing agencies
found missing ….”
on the receipt of adhoc demand d. The details of funds released are given in Annexure XXI, which shows that funds were unevenly released and major chunk of funds were released to the Districts of Sri Muktsar Sahib, Fazilka and Bathinda, which clearly depicts lopsided allocation of resources. 6.18
The receipt and payment of RDF for the last five years i.e. from 2012-13 to 2016-17 are given in Annexure XXII.
PUNJAB MANDI BOARD 6.19
The income of the Board is from Marketing Development Fee (Mandi Fee) which is levied on ad- valorem basis at the rate of `2 for every one hundred Rupees in respect of Agricultural Produce, bought or sold in the notified market area. The fee so levied is collected by the Market Committees of Punjab Mandi Board. Approximately 47 % of the Mandi Development Fee is received by the Punjab Mandi Board after the retention of approximately 53% at Market Committees.
6.20
The Market Fee is being spent for the purposes mentioned under Section 26 and Section 28 of The Punjab Agricultural produce Markets Act, 1961.
Page | 104 Funds
Chapter 6: Off Budget
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…the Board has incurred
6.21
Punjab Mandi Board has spent 45% of the fee collected on construction/repair of roads, another 24% to meet
disproportionately in
establishment expenditure and only 7% has been spent on
undertaking activities
the development of Mandis which is the main objective of
which should not have been that
constitution of the Board. The core areas on which the
important. Apart from
market development fund should have been utilized are the
this, the Board has
better marketing of agricultural products, grading and
pledged the future
standardising of agricultural products, to carry out
receipts by raising
extension activities and educating the farmers in marketing
loans and spending
activities. As against this the Board has incurred
them on unwarranted
disproportionately in undertaking activities which should
items...”
not have been that important. Apart from this, the Board has pledged the future receipts by raising loans and spending them on unwarranted items. 6.22
As per the orders of the previous Government, PMB has paid `15 crore, i.e. `5 crore per year towards cultural cess, which is not covered under section 26. Similarly maintenance of sports stadium had been assigned to PMB in contravention of the provisions of Section 26 and Section 28 of The Punjab Agricultural produce Markets Act, 1961.
Table 25: Expenditure detail of PMB (` crore) Sr. No.
Expenditure
2012-3
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17 (BE)
1
Development Of Mandis
92.45
36.77
42.69
86.26
60.00
2
Board Work
20.02
25.21
1.73
7.08
8.00
3
Repair of Rural Link Roads
134.02
196.09
458.71
160.59
375.00
4
Marketing Development Schemes Total
9.68
17.96
38.85
18.92
10.95
256.17
276.03
541.98
272.85
453.95
Source: PMB Note: Cost of Office Building at Mohali for the years 2012-13 to 2014-15 Approx. `65 crore
Page | 105 Funds
Chapter 6: Off Budget
WHITE PAPER State Finances
“…the decisions were
CONCLUSION 6.23
unplanned, scattered
In view of the above it has been observed that amongst the administrative departments the issue of increasing tendency to float statutory entities and to retain the revenues generated by various levies, in a separate corpus fund, instead of depositing the same in the Consolidated
and against the core mandate of the constitution of Boards and also need based assessment was found missing ….”
Fund of the State. These expenditure were neither presented for the sanction of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha and nor were these subject to the audit of CAG. It is observed that the decisions were unplanned, scattered and against the core mandate of the constitution of these entities and also need based assessment was found missing, and certainly circumventing of Article 266 (1) of the Constitution of India.
Page | 106 Funds
Chapter 6: Off Budget
ABBREVIATIONS 1
BE
Budget Estimates
2
AG
Accountant General
3
AMRUT
Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation
4
ARM
Additional Resource Mobilisation
5
BCR
Balance in Current Revenues
6
BPL
Below Poverty Line
7
C&AG
Comptroller and Auditor General
8
CAGR
Compound Annual Growth Rate
9
CAPEX
Capital Expenditure
10
CCL
Cash Credit Limit
11
DA
Dearness Allowance
12
DFPD
Department of Food and Public Distribution
13
EAP
External Aided Projects
14
EMI
Equated Monthly Instalment
15
ESO
Economic Statistical Organization
16
ETTSA
Excise and Taxation Technical Services Agency
17
FCI
Food Corporation of India
18
FD
Finance Department
19
FFC
Fourteenth Finance Commission
20
FI
Financial Institutions
21
FRBM
Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management
22
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
23
GMADA
Greater Mohali Development Authority
Page | 107
24
GoI
Government of India
25
GoP
Government of Punjab
26
GSDP
Gross State Domestic Product
27
GST
Goods & Services Tax
28
HOUSEFED Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building societies Limited
29
MARKFED
Marketing Federation Limited
30
MDF
Marketing Development Fee
31
MILKFED
Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Limited
32
MoU
Memorandum of Understanding
33
MSP
Minimum Support Price
34
NABARD
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
35
NIPFP
National Institute of Public Finance and Policy
36
NPA
Non-Performing Assets
37
NSSF
National Small Saving Funds
38
OMB
Open Market Borrowings
39
OTS
One Time Settlement
40
PFC
Punjab Financial Corporation
41
PIDB
Punjab Infrastructure Development Board
42
PIDF
Punjab Infrastructure Development Fund
43
PMB
Punjab Mandi Board
44
PMIDC
Punjab Municipal Infrastructure Development Company
45
PMIDF
Punjab Municipal Infrastructure Development Fund
46
PMO
Prime Minister Office
47
PRDB
Punjab Rural Development Board
Page | 108
48
PRIs
Panchayati Raj Institutions
49
PRTC
Punjab Road Transport Corporation
50
PSERC
Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission.
51
PSFC
Punjab State Finance Commission
52
PSIDC
Punjab State Industrial Development Corporations
53
PSPCL
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited
54
PSU
Public Sector Undertakings
55
PSWC
Punjab State Warehouse Corporation
56
PUDA
Punjab Urban Development Planning and Development Authority
57
PUNGRAIN
Punjab Grains Procurement Corporation Limited
58
PUNSUP
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation
59
RBI
Reserve Bank of India
60
RDB
Rural Development Board
61
RDF
Rural Development Fees
62
RE
Revised Estimates
63
RKVY
Rastriya Krishi Vikas Yojana
64
SBI
State Bank of India
65
SFC
State Finance Commission
66
SLR
Statutory Liquidity Ratio
67
SPA
State Procurement Agencies
68
SPSE
State Public Sector Enterprises
69
SUGARFED Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills.
70
ToR
Terms of Reference
71
UDAY
Ujwal DISCOM Assurance Yojana
Page | 109
72
ULBs
Urban Local Bodies
73
VAT
Value Added Tax
74
WMA
Ways and Means Advance
Page | 110
DEFINITIONS Sr. No. 1
Term Used
Definition
Budget Estimates The Budget attempts to arrive at an accurate estimate of the receipts (BE) and expenditure under each of the heads of accounts for the forthcoming year. The estimates are based upon the experience of the past years and the present policies of the Government and the anticipated events likely to occur in the future.
2
Capital Account
Capital Account are the transactions of the Government outside the Revenue Budget. Capital Account relates to the expenditure on items which lead to direct capital formation like buildings, roads, irrigation projects, machinery and equipment, share capital investments, etc. Capital Account also includes loans and advances given or obtained by the State Government. This would therefore, include the loans and advances received from the Centre and repayment thereof and the loans and advances made by the State Government to Boards, Corporations and other institutions and the repayment of such advances. The interest on these loans forms part of the revenue account.
3
Consolidated Fund
“Consolidated Fund” is the expression, which came into use, based on Article 266(1) of the Constitution. The normal revenues of the Government for the year, as shown in Revenue Account Receipts of the Budget, form part of the Consolidated Fund. Loans raised by the Government from the public, including financial institutions and form the Government of India, enter the Consolidated Fund. Moneys received by the government in repayments of loans are also included in the Consolidated Fund. The disbursements made out of these sources are consequently shown under the head of the Consolidated Fund. All expenditure proposed to be met from the Consolidated Fund should be placed before the Legislature and should be voted by the Legislature, except certain items classified as “charged” expenditure.
4
Contingent Liability
The State Government provides guarantee for loans of Boards and Corporations and these guarantees form the basis for the Government’s committed liability, in case of a default by the Board or Corporation on its loan repayment, the guarantee would get invoked by the lender and the State Government would be required to step in to repay the loan on behalf of the entity.
5
Fiscal Deficit
Fiscal Deficit means the excess of total disbursements from the Consolidated Fund of the State (excluding repayment of debt) over total receipts into the Consolidated Fund excluding the debt receipts during a financial year.
6
Gross State It is defined as a measure in monetary terms of the volume of all goods Domestic Product and services produced within the boundary of the State during a given (GSDP) period of time accounted without duplication.
7
Non-Plan and a) Non Plan Expenditure: Non Plan Expenditure, inter-alia includes Plan Expenditure committed expenditure on the establishment and other expenditure like grant-in-aid by the State Government maintenance of capital assets, subsidies, compensation, repayment of borrowings, interest payments Page | 111
Sr. No.
Term Used
Definition etc. In a nutshell, all expenditure which is recurring and is needed every year for the same purpose, is kept on the non- plan side. b) Plan Expenditure: Expenditure incurred on new development schemes/projects, expenditure on left over development works of previous year which are phased into two-three years or so, grant-in-aid given by GOI for a particular purpose like Central Finance Commission grants, etc., is termed as plan expenditure. Mostly it involves the expenditure on asset creation as well as on the development of infrastructure. The Non Plan and Plan expenditure both are further divided into revenue and capital account. The expenditure on establishment, State Grant in Aid, subsidies, compensation interest payments, etc. is kept under revenue account. Repayments of borrowings including cash credit for the purchase of food grains, provisions for creation of assets and other infrastructure, grant of loans to State Public Sector Undertakings and State Government Employees are kept under the Capital Account. The plan expenditure under the schemes of development nature is classified as under. 1. State Plan Schemes Sponsored by the State 2. Centrally Sponsored Schemes a. Schemes shared between State and Centre Government. b. Schemes 100% sponsored by the Centre Government in the State.C11
8
Per Capita The fixed assets are consumed in the process of production of these Income (PCI) goods and services in an economy during the given period of time. These fixed assets are known as consumption of fixed capital (CFC). When the CFC is deducted from GSDP, it gives NSDP (Net State Domestic Product). The NSDP divided by the Per Capita Income.
9
Public Account
Receipts and disbursements, such as deposits, reserve funds, remittances, etc. which do not form part of the “Consolidated Fund”, are included in the Public Account and are not subject to a vote by the Legislature, as they are not moneys issued out of the Consolidated Fund. All revenues received by the Government of a State, all loans raised by that Government by the issue of treasury bills, loans or ways and means advances and all money received by the Government in repayment of loans granted by that Government are credited into the Consolidated Fund of the State and provision is made in the Appropriation Bill passed under Article 204 of the Constitution for the appropriation out of the Consolidated Fund of all moneys required to meet the grants made by the Assembly and the expenditure charged on the above Fund. All other public moneys received by or on behalf of the Government of a State are credited to the Public Account of the State, and disbursements from that account, outside the Consolidated Fund of the State, do not require any appropriation of funds by the Legislature.
10
Revenue Expenditure
Revenue Account Disbursements give particulars of the estimated current expenditure of the different Departments of the Government. Of salaries and allowances, contingencies, grants in-aid, maintenance, pension, interest payments, interest charges etc. In other words it is primarily restricted to expenditure that does not lead to capital formation
Page | 112
Sr. No.
Term Used
Definition
11
Revenue Receipts
Revenue Account Receipts constitute the “Revenue Budget” which takes into account all revenue receipts. The total revenue receipts include State’s Own Taxes and Non-Tax Revenues and Grants-in-Aid and Share in Central Taxes from the Government of India.
12
Revenue Deficit
When the expenditure as summarized in Revenue Account Disbursements is deducted from the Revenue Account Receipts, we get the “Revenue Surplus” which is available for financing capital expenditure for the year. However, in recent years this has usually been a negative (minus) figure and is called the “Revenue Deficit”. Revenue Deficit otherwise means the excess of revenue expenditure over revenue receipts.
13
The Punjab Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2003
The State Legislature has enacted this Act to provide for the responsibility of the State Government to ensure prudence in fiscal management and fiscal stability by progressive elimination of revenue deficit, reduction in fiscal deficit, prudent debt management consistent with fiscal sustainability, greater transparency in fiscal operations of the Government and conduct of fiscal policy in a medium term framework and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Page | 113
REFERENCES
1. Department of Economic & Statistical Analysis, Punjab 2. Department of Food & Civil Supplies, Government of Punjab 3. Data for 2016-17 are the initial figures published by the AG Punjab 4. State Budget Document and Finance Account of AG Punjab 5. Concerned Departments (PIDB, Pungrain, Housing, PUDA, Food Agencies, 6. Collected from respective PSUs 7. PSPCL 8. Concerned Boards/Funds/Societies (PIDB, PMF, PEDB, PMIDC, PLDB, PRDB) 9. Concerned Societies 10. PIDB 11. Department of Food & Civil Supplies, Government of Punjab
Page | 114
Annexure I: Comparison of Growth rate of Gross State Domestic Product with other States (at constant prices 2004-05)
Sr. No.
State\UT
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
5.55%
14.54%
5.35%
15.04%
10.29%
10.69%
9.12%
Average 10.85%
1
Bihar
2006-07 16.18%
2
Goa
10.02%
5.54%
10.02%
10.20%
16.89%
20.20%
4.17%
7.71%
10.59%
3
Gujarat
8.39%
11.00%
6.78%
11.25%
10.01%
6.66%
6.15%
8.76%
8.63%
4
Haryana
11.22%
8.45%
8.17%
11.72%
7.41%
8.03%
5.50%
6.97%
8.43%
5
Madhya Pradesh
9.23%
4.69%
12.47%
9.56%
6.31%
8.54%
8.70%
9.48%
8.62%
6
Maharashtra
13.53%
11.26%
2.58%
9.30%
11.26%
4.52%
7.78%
7.28%
8.44%
7
Punjab**
10.18%
9.05%
5.85%
6.29%
6.52%
6.52%
4.64%
5.73%
6.85%
8
Rajasthan
11.67%
5.14%
9.09%
6.70%
14.41%
8.34%
6.41%
4.79%
8.32%
9
Tamil Nadu
15.21%
6.13%
5.45%
10.83%
13.12%
7.39%
3.39%
7.29%
8.60%
10
Uttar Pradesh
8.07%
7.32%
6.99%
6.58%
7.86%
5.58%
5.78%
4.95%
6.64%
Source: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India
Page | 115
Annexure-II: Balance in Current Revenues (BCR)
Page | 116
Sr. No.
Year
BCR
1
2006-07
2252
2
2007-08
-3656
3
2008-09
-3637
4
2009-10
-5757
5
2010-11
-4650
6
2011-12
-6373
7
2012-13
-6224
8
2013-14
-5739
9
2014-15
-6544
10
2015-16
-6138
11
2016-17
-4488
Annexure -III Pending Liability of Dearness Allowance The State Government is to discharge the liability of Rs. 2773 crore for payment of Dearness Allowance and Interim Relief as follows: Sr. No. 1 A.
B.
Rs. in crores
Amount With respect to Arrears Pending in Paid Treasury 6 7
Date of Sanction
Arrear Period
2
3
4
5
to 100%
14.10.2014 27.06.2016
01.01.2014 to 30.09.2014 (9 months) (Total 868 crore)
434
434
350
20.03.2015 27.06.2016
01.07.2014 to 28.02.2015 (9 months)
-
540
-
DA Rate
to 107%
Pending
C.
to 113%
24.08.2015
01.01.2015 to 31.07.2015 (9 months)
-
556
-
D.
to 119%
25.01.2016
01.07.2015 to 31.12.2015 (6 months)
358
-
-
E.
to 125%
21.10.2016
01.01.2016 to 31.10.2016 (10 months)
619
-
-
F.
to 132%
21.12.2016
01.07.2016 to 31.12.2016 (6 months)
417
-
-
G.
IR @ 5%
16.02.2017
01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016 (12 months)
595
-
-
2,423
1,530
350
Total Arrears (A-G) Total Pending DA Liability {Arrear Pending (Col.5) +Bills Pending in treasury (Col.7)}
Page | 117
2,773
Annexure -IV
Sr.
Debt Profile and Interest Payments of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL)
Particulars
No
unit
2006-
2007-
2008-
2009-
2010-
2011-
2012-
2013-
2014-
2015-
2016-
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
Total Revenue
Rs crore
8760
11431
11936
12250
13668
16104
19804
21694
23729
24068
25543
2
Total Interest Paid
Rs crore
1044
1073
1424
1646
1803
2199
2568
2667
2801
3263
2980
3
Long Term Loan Repayment
Rs crore
670
1983
974
2319
588
1734
882
1288
1306
1472
3256
Rs crore
1714
3056
2398
3965
2391
3933
3450
3955
4107
4735
6236
Rs crore
3069
2275
4570
6064
6787
5215
8176
2101
1988
10790
4568
Rs crore
4783
5331
6968
10029
9178
9148
11626
6056
6095
15525
10804
%
55
47
58
82
67
57
59
28
26
65
42
%
20
27
20
32
17
24
17
18
17
20
24
%
12
9
12
13
13
14
13
12
12
14
12
4 5 6
Interest $ LTL Repayment (2+3) Working Capital Loans Repayments Interest and total debt repayments Total interest and Debt
7
repayment to total revenue (Sr 6 /Sr1*100) Total interest and Debt
8
repayment without working capital to total revenue (Sr 4/Sr1*100)
9
Total interest to total revenue (Sr 2 /Sr1*100)
Page | 118
Annexure V : STATE EQUITY IN VARIOUS PSUs (Rs in crore)
Sr. No
Name of the Corporations/Boards, Co-operatives, Apex Institutions.
Year of the Account
Equity held by the State Government
2
3
4
1 A
INDUSTRIES
1
Punjab Financial Corporation
2015-16
29.31
2
Punjab State Industrial Dev. Corp.
2015-16
78.21
3
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corp.
2015-16
49.86
4
Punjab INFOTECH
2015-16
19.23
B
AGRICULTURE, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FOREST
6
Punjab State Seeds Corporation
2015-16
4.51
7
Punjab Land Dev. & Reclamation Corp.
2017-18
1.45
8
Punjab Agro Industries Corporation
2015-16
45.46
9
Punjab State Warehousing Corporation
2015-16
4.00
10
Punjab State Container & Warehousing Corp.
2015-16
25.00
11
Punjab State Forest Dev. Corporation
2015-16
0.25
C
POWER & IRRIGATION
16
Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd.
2016-17
6081.47
17
Punjab State Transmission Corp. Ltd.
2015-16
605.88
18
Punjab Water Res. Mgt. & Dev. Corp.
2015-16
300.00
D
WELFARE
Page | 119
Sr. No
Name of the Corporations/Boards, Co-operatives, Apex Institutions.
Year of the Account
Equity held by the State Government
19
Punjab SCs Land Dev. & Finance Corp.
2015-16
5.42
20
Punjab Backward Classes Land Dev.Fin. Corp.
2014-15
20.00
E
FOOD
21
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation
2015-16
3.73
22
PUNGRAIN
2015-16
1.05
F
TRANSPORT
23
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation
2015-16
306.44
24
Punjab Bus Stand Management Company
2016-17
56.15
G
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
25
Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board
2015-16
6.58
26
PMIDC
2016-17
0.05
H
DEFENCE SERVICES WELFARE
27
Punjab Ex-servicemen Corporation
2015-16
2.05
2016-17
0.05
I
HOME
28
Punjab Police Housing Corporation
J
COOPERATION
29
MILKFED
2015-16
15.00
30
SUGARFED
2015-16
138.48
31
MARKFED
2015-16
21.06
32
HOUSEFED
2015-16
9.04
33
Punjab. State Co-op. Agri. Dev. Bank
2016-17
0.50
Page | 120
Sr. No
Name of the Corporations/Boards, Co-operatives, Apex Institutions.
Year of the Account
Equity held by the State Government
2015-16
0.20
2015-16
0.00
2016-17
0.00
2015-16
0.00
34
Punjab State Co-operative Bank
K
DEVELOPMENT
35
Punjab Infrastructure Dev. Board
L
HEALTH
36
Punjab Health System Corp.
M
HOUSING
37
Punjab Urban Planning & Dev. Authority
N
ALREADY CLOSED UNITS
38
Punjab State Leather Dev. Corp.
2004-05
3.42
39
PUNTEX
2014-15
0.00
40
Punjab. State Hosiery &Knitwear Dev. Corp
2005-06
390.70
41
Punjab. Poultry Development Corporation
2016-17
3.09
42
Punjab Tourism Development Corporation
2015-16
6.66
Total
8234.30
Source: Collected from respective PSUs.
Annexure VI: STATEMENT OF LOANS OF PSUs (Rs in Crore)
Page | 121
Sr. No 1
2
Year of Account 3
A
INDUSTRIES
1
Punjab Financial Corporation
2015-16
16.54
22.24
38.78
2
Punjab State Industrial Dev. Corp.
2015-16
-
0.00
0.00
3
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corp.
2015-16
0.00
0.00
0.00
4
Punjab INFOTECH
2015-16
0.00
0.00
0.00
5
Punjab Khadi & Village Industries Dev. Board
2014-15
0.00
27.92
27.92
B
AGRICULTURE, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FOREST
6
Punjab State Seeds Corporation
2015-16
0.00
5.00
5.00
7
Punjab Land Dev. & Reclamation Corp.
2017-18
0.00
3.72
3.72
8
Punjab Agro Industries Corporation
2015-16
0.00
0.00
0.00
9
Punjab State Warehousing Corporation
2015-16
0.00
1146.94
1146.94
10
Punjab State Container & Warehousing Corp.
2015-16
0.00
0.00
0.00
11
Punjab State Forest Dev. Corporation
2015-16
0.00
0.00
0.00
12
Punjab Mandi Board
13
Punjab Agro Food Grain Corporation
2014-15
0.00
0.00
0.00
14
Punjab Agri Export Corporation Ltd.
2015-16
0.00
0.00
0.00
15
Punjab Rural Development Board
2015-16
0.00
0.00
0.00
C
POWER & IRRIGATION
16
Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd.
2016-17
15628.26
9602.74
23989.00
17
Punjab State Transmission Corp. Ltd.
2015-16
0.00
3741.17
3741.17
18
Punjab Water Res. Mgt. & Dev. Corp.
2015-16
222.25
0.00
222.25
Name of the Board/Corporation
Page | 122
Raised from Punjab Government 4
Other not Guaranteed by Punjab Government 5
0.00
Total 6
0.00
Sr. No
Name of the Board/Corporation
Year of Account
Raised from Punjab Government
Other not Guaranteed by Punjab Government
Total
D
WELFARE
19
Punjab SCs Land Dev. & Finance Corp.
2015-16
0.00
0.00
0.00
20
Punjab Backward Classes Land Development Finance Corporation.
2014-15
0.00
0.00
0.00
E
FOOD
21
Punjab. State Civil Supplies Corporation
2015-16
0.00
1109.12
1109.12
22
PUNGRAIN
2015-16
0.00
0.00
0.00
F
TRANSPORT
23
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation
2015-16
23.75
45.09
68.84
24
Punjab Bus Stand Management Company
2016-17
0.00
35.23
46.82
G
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
25
Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board
2015-16
0.00
0.00
0.00
26
PMIDC
2016-17
0.00
246.63
246.63
H
DEFENCE SERVICES WELFARE
27
Punjab Ex-servicemen Corporation
2015-16
0.00
0.00
0.00
I
HOME
28
Punjab Police Housing Corporation
2016-17
0.00
0.00
0.00
J
COOPERATION
29
MILKFED
2015-16
0.00
66.50
66.50
30
SUGARFED
2015-16
1139.29
0.00
1139.29
31
MARKFED
2015-16
0.00
1227.23
1227.23
32
HOUSEFED
2015-16
0.00
191.65
191.65
33
Punjab State Co-op. Agri. Dev. Bank
2016-17
0.00
200.00
200.00
Page | 123
Sr. No
Name of the Board/Corporation
Year of Account
Raised from Punjab Government
Other not Guaranteed by Punjab Government
Total
2015-16
0.83
5828.02
5828.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
34
Punjab State Co-operative Bank
35
PUNCOFED
K
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
36
Punjab Pollution Control Board
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
37
Punjab Energy Development Agency
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
L
DEVELOPMENT
38
Punjab Infrastructure Dev. Board
2015-16
0.00
0.00
0.00
39
Punjab Roads & Bridges Dev. Board
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
M
HEALTH
40
Punjab Health System Corp.
2016-17
0.00
0.00
0.00
N
HOUSING
41
Punjab Urban Planning & Dev. Authority
2015-16
0.00
325.16
325.16
O
ALREADY CLOSED UNITS
42
Punjab State Leather Dev. Corp.
2004-05
0.00
0.00
0.00
43
PUNTEX
2014-15
0.00
0.00
0.00
44
Punjab. State Hosiery &Knitwear Dev. Corp
2005-06
0.00
0.00
0.00
45
Punjab. Poultry Development Corporation
2016-17
0.00
0.00
0.00
46
Punjab Tourism Development Corporation
2015-16
0.00
0.00
0.00
17030.92
23824.36
39624.87
Total Source: Collected from respective PSUs
Page | 124
Annexure VII: DETAILED STATEMENT OF GUARANTEES GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT Guarantees given by State Government for repayment of loans etc. raised by statutory Corporations/boards, Government Companies, Local Bodies, Co-operative Banks and societies during the year and sums guaranteed outstanding on 31st March 2017 in various sectors are shown below (In Lacs): Invoked during the Guarantee year /commission fee S Name of Corporations Class Maxim Outstan Additi Deletion Discharged Not Outstan Paid r. (No. of um ding at on during Discha ding at Payabl N Guarante Amoun the durin the year rged the end e o. es)(a) t beginni g the of the Guaran ng of year year teed the (Principa during year l) the year 1 BACKFINCO 0 0 6530.09 600 301 6829.09 2
Punjab Forest development corporation
0
0
1178
3
2
60910. 5 85000
60910.5
4
Punjab State industrial development corporation PMIDC
5
MILKFED
0
6
PUNSUP
7
Punjab Schedule Class and Land Development Corporations
8
Punjab State Warehouing Corporations
9
Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank PIDC
1 0 1 1
Punjab Agro Industries corporation
Page | 125
1178
0
0
0
0
0
0
264
0
0
60646
0
2663
34631
5000
9928
0
0
29703
0
0
0
1249.4
0
0
0
0
1249.4
0
0
0
0
963840
5961
930350
0
0
39451
0
0
loan from national corporatio n 0
2000
2853.14
0
0
360.2
0
2492.94
0
0
0
462021. 08 233210
0
0
0
1200
0
0
53830
460821.0 8 50177
0
0
236863
0
0
404995. 62 1200
31356 4.25 1000
322172.9 1 470
110165 0 0
2712.6 3
0 0
0 0
396386.9 6 1730
0
0 0
1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2
Punjab State Water Sewearge Board Markfed
Supply
and
Punjab Khadi and Gram Udyog
0
323.9
0
300.9
0
0
23
0
0
0
932252
0
918722
0
0
13530
0
57.008 52 0
0
0
957
0
0
0
957
957
0
0
807432
0
683154
124278
0
0
0
0
82686
35000
19613
0
0
98073
1000
0
572384
0
561247
0
0
11137
0
0
30000
23800
23250
10320
0
0
36730
0
664
2366.3
0
0
0
19591.65
0
0
17980 0 29671. 88 16932 6 81936 9.43
47990
0
0
209040
0
1800
25174
0
0
0
0
273605
0
0
141348.8 8 753835
2000
2500
PUNGRAIN Punjab State Transmission Corporation
0
156112
Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Punjab Mandi Board
0
Punjab Financial Corporation Punjab Rural Development Board
1
90000
17225.3 5 77230
PUDA
6
0
136851
POWERCOM
0
0
858114
152838 5.13
568187 4.08
Total
4315787. 89
124638.2
957
2060816. 92
3000
* There was a outstanding amount of rupees 683154 lac on 10.03.2017 same has been transfer as term loan in the name of Government of Punjab. * Revolving Guarantee
Page | 126
7684.0 0852
Annexure- VIII Punjab Infrastructure Development Board (PIDB) Sr. No
Particulars
unit
2006-07
2007-08
200809
200910
201011
201112
1
Total Revenue
Rs crore
181.28
219.76
620.7
741.95
619.94
687.38
2
Total Interest Paid
Rs crore
0
2.91
15.11
105.48
105.48
3
Long Term Loan Repayment
Rs crore
0
0
0
0
4
Intt. $ LTL Repayment (2+3)
Rs crore
0
2.91
15.11
5
Working Capital Loans Repayments
Rs crore
0
0
6
Interest and total debt repayments
Rs crore
0
%
7
8
9
Total interest and Debt repayment to total revenue (Sr 6 /Sr1*100) Total interest and Debt repayment without working capital to total revenue (Sr 4/Sr1*100) Total interest to total revenue (Sr 2 /Sr1*100)
Page | 127
201213 1304.3 7
201314 1191.3 6
201415 1177.3 8
201516 2635.9 7
201617 2193.2 5
105.48
105.48
105.48
105.48
108.4
214.35
0
0
0
0
0
88.13
670.88
105.48
105.48
105.48
105.48
105.48
105.48
196.53
885.23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.91
15.11
105.48
105.48
105.48
105.48
105.48
105.48
196.53
885.23
0
1.32
2.43
14.22
17.01
15.35
8.09
8.85
8.96
7.46
40.36
%
0
1.32
2.43
14.22
17.01
15.35
8.09
8.85
8.96
7.46
40.36
%
0
1.32
2.43
14.22
17.01
15.35
8.09
8.85
8.96
4.11
9.77
Annexure- IX Punjab Municipal Infrastructure Development Company (PMIDC)
Sr. No
Particulars
unit
1
Total Revenue
Rs crore
2
Total Interest Paid
3
2009-10
11
201213
2013-14
2014-15
201516
2016-17
2.58
2.63
12.42
1.73
1.1
Rs crore
6.12
36.85
29.46
45.66
42.06
28.63
Long Term Loan Repayment
Rs crore
32
52
126
234.32
99.28
99.28
4
Intt. $ LTL Repayment (2+3)
Rs crore
0
0
38.12
88.85
155.46
279.98
141.34
127.91
5
Working Capital Loans Repayments
Rs crore
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
Interest and total debt repayments
Rs crore
0
0
38.12
88.85
155.46
279.98
141.34
127.91
%
0.00
0.00
3343.86
3443.80
5911.03
2254.27
8169.94
11628.18
%
0.00
0.00
3343.86
3443.80
5911.03
2254.27
8169.94
11628.18
%
0.00
0.00
536.84
1428.29
1120.15
367.63
2431.21
2602.73
Total interest and Debt repayment to total revenue (Sr 6 /Sr1*100)
0.48
2011-12 1.14
7
0.09
2010-
Total interest and Debt repayment 8
without working capital to total revenue (Sr 4/Sr1*100)
9
Total interest to total revenue (Sr 2 /Sr1*100)
Note: The interest and Principal paid on Long term loans is paid from PMIDF fund so the amount of interest paid not debited against the revenue earned by PMIDC . Therefore the ratio of row numbers 7,8,&9 is not appopriate
Page | 128
Annexure- X MARKFED
Sr. No
Particulars
unit
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
1
Total Revenue
Rs crore
3619.23
4689.21
5530.17
7528.37
9057.91
9235.07
2
Total Interest Paid
Rs crore
201.16
360.27
661.61
861.26
913.27
Rs crore
0
0
0
0
Rs crore
201.16
360.27
661.61
Rs crore
10206.02
8580.03
9352.07
Rs crore
10407.18
8940.3
%
288
%
%
3 4 5 6
Long Term Loan Repayment Intt. $ LTL Repayment (2+3) Working Capital Loans Repayments Interest and total debt repayments
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
10641.0
13135.7
12861.8
12939.1
13384.1
5
1
3
9
3
1264.71
1586.92
1600.86
1582.22
1550.19
1473.37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
861.26
913.27
1264.71
1586.92
1600.86
1582.22
1550.19
1473.37
15903.2
17906.0
19981.6
17802.9
21383.6
14860.1
9
1
9
8
9
4
10013.6
16764.5
18819.2
16442.3
5
8
19389.9
22984.5
8
21246.4
5
6
191
181
223
208
230
182
175
128
63
110
5.56
7.68
11.96
11.44
10.08
13.69
14.91
12.19
12.30
11.98
11.01
5.56
7.68
11.96
11.44
10.08
13.69
14.91
12.19
12.30
11.98
11.01
6641.5 8191.69
13270.1 8 14743.5 5
Total interest and Debt 7
repayment to total revenue (Sr 6 /Sr1*100) Total interest and Debt
8
repayment without working capital to total revenue (Sr 4/Sr1*100)
9
Total interest to total revenue (Sr 2 /Sr1*100)
Page | 129
Annexure- XI PUNGRAIN Sr.
Particulars
No
unit
2006-
2007-
2008-
2009-
2010-
2011-
2012-
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
3543.4
4902.5
6667.6
8340.3
8516.5
4
4
1
2
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
9644.9
11987.9
12583.0
13977.3
1
1
9
3
6
1040.9
1216.2
1
9
1281.02
1309.64
1430.1
0
0
0
0
0
1040.9
1216.2
1
9
1281.02
1309.64
1430.1
4646.9
3572.9
5921.49
5226.55
1878.25
7202.51
6536.19
3308.35
1
Total Revenue
Rs crore
3060.9
2
Total Interest Paid
Rs crore
108.62
204.28
407.65
574.82
714.38
3
Long Term Loan Repayment
Rs crore
0
0
0
0
0
4
Intt. $ LTL Repayment (2+3)
Rs crore
108.62
204.28
407.65
574.82
714.38
Rs crore
318.16
797.28
1398.0
1822.5
3478.8
7
4
3
Rs crore
426.78
1001.5
1805.7
2397.3
4193.2
5687.8
4789.1
6
2
6
1
1
9
%
13.94
28.27
36.83
35.96
50.28
66.79
49.66
60.08
51.94
23.67
%
3.55
5.77
8.32
8.62
8.57
12.22
12.61
10.69
10.41
10.23
%
3.55
5.77
8.32
8.62
8.57
12.22
12.61
10.69
10.41
10.23
5 6
Working Capital Loans Repayments Interest and total debt repayments Total interest and Debt
7
repayment to total revenue (Sr 6 /Sr1*100) Total interest and Debt
8
repayment without working capital to total revenue (Sr 4/Sr1*100)
9
Total interest to total revenue (Sr 2 /Sr1*100)
Page | 130
Annexure- XII Punjab Rural Development Board (PRDB) Sr.
2006-
2007-
2008-
2010-
2011-
2012-
2013-
2014-
2015-
2016-
07
08
09
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Rs crore
348.81
393.76
575.69
655.41
632.69
638.41
826.03
747.47
757.6
879.02
933
Rs crore
27.43
33.89
40.98
54.27
78.22
138.33
162.21
122.37
73.78
63.27
114.43
Rs crore
111.5
113.82
112.37
173.24
280.58
347.64
411.67
400
420.5
289.65
407.9
Rs crore
138.93
147.71
153.35
227.51
358.8
485.97
573.88
522.37
494.28
352.92
522.33
Rs crore
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rs crore
138.93
147.71
153.35
227.51
358.8
485.97
573.88
522.37
494.28
352.92
522.33
%
39.83
37.51
26.64
34.71
56.71
76.12
69.47
69.89
65.24
40.15
55.98
%
39.83
37.51
26.64
34.71
56.71
76.12
69.47
69.89
65.24
40.15
55.98
%
7.86
8.61
7.12
8.28
12.36
21.67
19.64
16.37
9.74
7.20
12.26
Particulars
unit
1
Total Revenue
2
Total Interest Paid
No
3 4 5 6
Long Term Loan Repayment Intt. $ LTL Repayment (2+3) Working Capital Loans Repayments Interest and total debt repayments
2009-10
Total interest and Debt 7
repayment to total revenue (Sr 6 /Sr1*100) Total interest and Debt
8
repayment without working capital to total revenue (Sr 4/Sr1*100)
9
Total interest to total revenue (Sr 2 /Sr1*100)
Page | 131
Annexure- XIII Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (PUDA) Sr.
2006-
2007-
2008-
2009-
2010-
2011-
2012-
2013-
2014-
2015-
2016-
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Rs crore
186.85
301.47
754.03
286.73
309.23
132.63
239.3
325.34
774.46
749.48
669.19
Total Interest Paid
Rs crore
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.9
154.93
197.63
184.86
161.95
3
Long Term Loan Repayment
Rs crore
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20.04
278.86
353.43
293.41
4
Intt. $ LTL Repayment (2+3)
Rs crore
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.9
174.97
476.49
538.29
455.36
Rs crore
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rs crore
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.9
174.97
476.49
538.29
455.36
%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.79
53.78
61.53
71.82
68.05
%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.79
53.78
61.53
71.82
68.05
%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.79
47.62
25.52
24.67
24.20
Particulars
unit
1
Total Revenue
2
No
5 6
Working Capital Loans Repayments Interest and total debt repayments Total interest and Debt
7
repayment to total revenue (Sr 6 /Sr1*100) Total interest and Debt
8
repayment without working capital to total revenue (Sr 4/Sr1*100)
9
Total interest to total revenue (Sr 2 /Sr1*100)
Page | 132
Annexure- XIV Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) Sr.
Particulars
unit
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
1
Total Revenue
Rs crore
37.5
398.77
635.49
187.18
742.47
1100.63
1136.58
716.16
1120.22
1049.65
852
2
Total Interest Paid
Rs crore
0
0
0
0
39.41
53.64
152.73
166.92
208.38
228.92
275.15
Rs crore
0
0
0
0
423.29
244.59
280.5
190.81
1286.72
0
843.5
Rs crore
0
0
0
0
462.7
298.23
433.23
357.73
1495.1
228.92
1118.65
Rs crore
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rs crore
0
0
0
0
462.7
298.23
433.23
357.73
1495.1
228.92
1118.65
%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
62.32
27.10
38.12
49.95
133.46
21.81
131.30
%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
62.32
27.10
38.12
49.95
133.46
21.81
131.30
%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.31
4.87
13.44
23.31
18.60
21.81
32.29
No
3 4 5 6
Long Term Loan Repayment Intt. $ LTL Repayment (2+3) Working Capital Loans Repayments Interest and total debt repayments Total interest and Debt
7
repayment to total revenue (Sr 6 /Sr1*100) Total interest and Debt
8
repayment without working capital to total revenue (Sr 4/Sr1*100)
9
Total interest to total revenue (Sr 2 /Sr1*100)
Page | 133
Annexure- XV Punjab Road Transport Corporation (PRTC) Sr.
Particulars
No
unit
2006-
2007-
2008-
2009-
2010-
2011-
2012-
2013-
2014-
2015-
2016-
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
Total Revenue
Rs crore
437.73
443.73
236
245.35
289.41
319.48
340.84
376.12
376.77
413.02
458
2
Total Interest Paid
Rs crore
7.6
5.75
9.23
9.87
11.16
7.92
9.5
8.61
8.59
10.03
11.12
3
Long Term Loan Repayment
Rs crore
3.84
8.09
8.02
9.68
10.83
9.92
18.54
13.64
11.96
6.81
7.2
4
Intt. $ LTL Repayment (2+3)
Rs crore
11.44
13.84
17.25
19.55
21.99
17.84
28.04
22.25
20.55
16.84
18.32
Rs crore
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rs crore
11.44
13.84
17.25
19.55
21.99
17.84
28.04
22.25
20.55
16.84
18.32
%
2.61
3.12
7.31
7.97
7.60
5.58
8.23
5.92
5.45
4.08
4.00
%
2.61
3.12
7.31
7.97
7.60
5.58
8.23
5.92
5.45
4.08
4.00
%
1.74
1.30
3.91
4.02
3.86
2.48
2.79
2.29
2.28
2.43
2.43
Working Capital Loans
5
Repayments Interest and total debt
6
repayments Total interest and Debt
7
repayment to total revenue (Sr 6 /Sr1*100) Total interest and Debt repayment without working
8
capital to total revenue (Sr 4/Sr1*100) 9
Total interest to total revenue (Sr 2 /Sr1*100)
Page | 134
Annexure- XVI PUNSUP SN
Particulars
unit
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
1
Total Revenue
Rs crore
3618.67
4450.23
5170.94
6591.24
7921.16
8901.35
9967.01
12159.76
10835.25
11817.89
2
Total Interest Paid
Rs crore
194.13
295.26
551
804.42
838.99
1133.7
1413.54
1426.79
1391.41
1103.48
Rs crore
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rs crore
194.13
295.26
551
804.42
838.99
1133.7
1413.54
1426.79
1391.41
1103.48
Rs crore
2579.75
3882.52
3493.97
4419.52
6266.11
7197.33
6532
9037.93
8196.62
9258.92
Rs crore
2773.88
4177.78
4044.97
5223.94
7105.1
8331.03
7945.54
10464.72
9588.03
10362.4
%
76.65
93.88
78.23
79.26
89.70
93.59
79.72
86.06
88.49
87.68
%
5.36
6.63
10.66
12.20
10.59
12.74
14.18
11.73
12.84
9.34
%
5.36
6.63
10.66
12.20
10.59
12.74
14.18
11.73
12.84
9.34
3 4 5 6
Long Term Loan Repayment Intt. $ LTL Repayment (2+3) Working Capital Loans Repayments Interest and total debt repayments Total interest and Debt
7
repayment to total revenue (Sr 6 /Sr1*100) Total interest and Debt
8
repayment without working capital to total revenue (Sr 4/Sr1*100)
9
Total interest to total revenue (Sr 2 /Sr1*100)
Page | 135
Annexure- XVII Punjab Agricultural Marketing Board (Mandi Board) 2009-
2010-
2011-
2012-
2013-
2014-
2015-
2016-
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
388.6
375.28
413.3
426.96
505.7
528.78
751.33
558.11
485.25
10.86
16.13
31.73
29.63
34.83
31.08
20.73
36.51
26.79
36
22.83
24.99
51.57
48
108.47
96.9
112.42
100
160
100
103.2
Rs crore
31.63
35.85
67.7
79.73
138.1
131.73
143.5
120.73
196.51
126.79
139.2
Rs crore
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rs crore
31.63
35.85
67.7
79.73
138.1
131.73
143.5
120.73
196.51
126.79
139.2
%
17.55
15.69
17.42
21.25
33.41
30.85
28.38
22.83
26.15
22.72
28.69
%
17.55
15.69
17.42
21.25
33.41
30.85
28.38
22.83
26.15
22.72
28.69
%
4.88
4.75
4.15
8.46
7.17
8.16
6.15
3.92
4.86
4.80
7.42
Particulars
unit
1
Total Revenue
Rs crore
180.27
228.44
2
Total Interest Paid
Rs crore
8.8
Rs crore
3 4 5 6
Long Term Loan Repayment Interest $ LTL Repayment (2+3) Working Capital Loans Repayments Interest and total debt repayments
2006-07
2007-
SN
08
2008-09
Total interest and Debt 7
repayment to total revenue (Sr 6 /Sr1*100) Total interest and Debt
8
repayment without working capital to total revenue (Sr 4/Sr1*100)
9
Total interest to total revenue (Sr 2 /Sr1*100)
Page | 136
Annexure- XVIII Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited (PSTCL) Sr. No
Particulars
unit
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
1
Total Revenue
Rs crore
408
534
895
1323
953
1177
883
2
Total Interest Paid
Rs crore
124
179
216
269
374
477
519
3
Long Term Loan Repayment
Rs crore
107
140
146
307
315
380
313
4
Intt. $ LTL Repayment (2+3)
Rs crore
231
319
362
576
689
857
832
5
Working Capital Loans Repayments
Rs crore
0
0
100
0
0
0
231
6
Interest and total debt repayments
Rs crore
231
319
462
576
689
857
1063
%
57
60
52
44
72
73
120
%
57
60
40
44
72
73
94
%
30
34
24
20
39
41
59
7
Total interest and Debt repayment to total revenue (Sr 6 /Sr1*100) Total interest and Debt repayment
8
without working capital to total revenue (Sr 4/Sr1*100)
9
Page | 137
Total interest to total revenue (Sr 2 /Sr1*100)
Annexure – XIX: Summary of Various Bonds raised by PIDB - As on 31.05.2017
Sr. No.
1.
Bond Series
PIDB Bonds Series-I (Regular Return Bonds)
2.
PIDB Bonds Series-II (Deep Discount Bonds)
3.
PIDB Bonds Series-III (Deep Discount Bonds)
Page | 138
Amount (Crore)
150
499.93
150.03
Date of Allotment
06.08.2007
27.12.2007
15.10.2008
Rate of Interest
10.07%
10.19%
11.98%
Tenure of Bonds
10 Years
20 Years
25 Years
Put Call/Buy Back of Bonds (Crore)
119.07
Outstanding Bonds (Crore)
30.93
-
-
Repayment
Put & Call Option
In 3 Equal Installments starting from the end of 8th year
Was available at the end of 8th Year (i.e. on 06.08.15)
499.93
In 10 Equal Installments starting from the end of 11th year
None
150.03
In 10 Equal Installments starting from the end of 16th year
None
Repayment Dates
Repayment Amount (in crores) Interest
Principal
06.08.2017
3.11
30.93
27.12.2018 27.12.2019 27.12.2020 27.12.2021 27.12.2022 27.12.2023 27.12.2024 27.12.2025 27.12.2026 27.12.2027 15.10.2017 15.10.2018 15.10.2019 15.10.2020 15.10.2021 15.10.2022 15.10.2023 15.10.2024 15.10.2025
4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.05
216.70 216.70 216.70 216.70 216.70 216.70 216.70 216.70 216.70 216.70 112.50 112.50
4.
5.
6.
PIDB Bonds Series-IVA (Regular Return Bonds)
PIDB Bonds Series-IVB (Regular Return Bonds)
PIDB Bonds Series-IVC (Regular Return Bonds) Total
Page | 139
252
442
56
1549.96
31.12.2008
19.01.2009
16.02.2009
11.45%
11.45%
11.45%
15 Years
15 Years
15 Years
172.10
235.60
37.30
564.07
79.90
206.40
18.70
985.89
In 5 Equal Installments starting from the end of 11th year
In 5 Equal Installments starting from the end of 11th year
In 5 Equal Installments starting from the end of 11th year
At the end of 10th Year
At the end of 10th Year
At the end of 10th Year
15.10.2026 15.10.2027 15.10.2028 15.10.2029 15.10.2030 15.10.2031 15.10.2032 15.10.2033 31.12.2017 31.12.2018 31.12.2019
3.60 3.15 2.70 2.25 1.80 1.35 0.90 0.45 9.15 9.15
112.50 112.50 112.50 112.50 112.50 112.50 112.50 112.50 15.98
31.12.2020
7.32
15.98
31.12.2021
5.49
15.98
31.12.2022
3.66
15.98
31.12.2023
1.83
15.98
19.01.2018 19.01.2019 19.01.2020
23.63 23.63 23.63
41.28
19.01.2021
18.91
41.28
19.01.2022
14.18
41.28
19.01.2023
9.45
41.28
19.01.2024
4.73
41.28
16.02.2018 16.02.2019 16.02.2020
2.14 2.14 2.14
3.74
16.02.2021
1.71
3.74
16.02.2022
1.28
3.74
16.02.2023
0.86
3.74
16.02.2024
0.43
3.74
224.82
3,627.93
Note(s): (i) In Case of PIDB Bonds Series-I, Put option was exercised by Bondholders holding principal amount of Rs. 88.13 crores & two installments of principal amount of Rs. 30.94 crores has been paid by PIDB and now the principal amount outstanding against Rs. 150 crores is only Rs. 30.93 crores. (ii) In Case of PIDB Bonds Series-IVA, IVB & IVC, various Bondholders gave their consent for the Buy-Back of PIDB Bonds & the principal amount outstanding against these Bonds is now Rs. 305 crores, since PIDB bought back Bonds of Rs. 445 crores till date out of Rs. 750 crores.
Page | 140
Annexure – XX : Details of Loans sanctioned/ availed by PIDB and latest position (A) Loan Phase I - Rs. 1600 crores + Loan Phase II - Rs. 900 crores + Loan Phase III - Rs. 700 crores + Loan Phase IV - Rs. 900 crores = Total Rs. 4100 crores
SN
Name of Banks
Loan Sanctioned
Loan Availed till date
Loan re-paid
Outstanding Loan
Rate of Interest
1.
Bank of India
500.00
365.42
72.80
292.62
9.25% (MCLR 9.25% + 0.00% spread)
2.
ICICI Bank
300.00
300.00
43.75
256.25
9.34% (Base Rate 9.10% + 0.24% spread)
3.
Oriental Bank of Commerce
300.00
293.25
47.11
246.14
9.40% (MCLR 8.60% + 0.80% spread)
4.
Indian Bank
200.00
200.00
29.17
170.83
9.25% (MCLR Rate 8.60% + 0.65% spread)
5.
UCO Bank
200.00
162.16
33.34
128.82
9.25% (MCLR 8.60% + 0.65% spread)
1,500.00
1,320.83
226.17
1,094.66
Total 6.
HDFC Bank
100.00
100.00
4.16
95.84
9.19% (Base Rate 9.00% + 0.19% spread)
7.
Andhra Bank
200.00
200.00
-
200.00
9.55% (MCLR 9.55% + 0% spread)
8.
Indian Bank
300.00
300.00
-
300.00
9.55% (MCLR 9.45% + 0.10% spread)
9.
UCO Bank
100.00
100.00
-
100.00
9.60% (MCLR 9.45% + 0.15% spread)
10.
Punjab National Bank
300.00
300.00
-
300.00
9.55% (MCLR 9.55% + 0.00% spread)
1,000.00
1,000.00
4.16
995.84
Total 11.
Canara Bank
500.00
500.00
-
500.00
9.30% (MCLR 9.30% + 0.00% spread)
12.
UCO Bank
200.00
150.00
-
150.00
9.30% s(MCLR 9.30% + 0.00% spread)
700.00
650.00
-
650.00
Total 13.
Union Bank of India
200.00
30.10
-
30.10
9.30% (MCLR 9.30% + 0.00% spread)
14.
Punjab National Bank
200.00
129.00
-
129.00
9.15% (MCLR 9.15% + 0.00% spread)
15.
Canara Bank
500.00
43.00
-
43.00
8.45% (MCLR 8.45% + 0.00% spread)
Total
900.00
202.10
-
202.10
Grand Total of Loan
4,100.00
3,172.93
230.33
2,942.60
Page | 141
Annexure XXI Fund Flow Statement (Rs in crores) SN 1
PARTICULARS
2017-18
Expected Receipt of RDF
Total Receipt
820.00
-I
820.00
A
INTEREST PAYMENTS ON LOANS
A
186.13
B
REPAYMENT OF LOANS
B
466.80
C
AMOUNT FOR OTHER EXPENDITURE
C
20.00
Total Payments A+B+C
- II
SURPLUS AVAILABLE FOR OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL WORKS (I-II)
Page | 142
672.93 147.07
Annexure- XXII Receipts and Expenditure of PRDB (Rs. In crores)
Page | 143
Receipts ( including loans availed)
Payments (including repayment of loans)
Excess of Receipt over Payments
120.00
516.32
448.83
187.49
2006-07
187.49
733.61
807.37
113.73
2007-08
113.73
439.90
499.44
54.19
2008-09
54.19
875.68
868.61
61.26
2009-10
61.26
1145.21
1041.73
164.74
2010-11
164.74
1357.70
1355.26
167.18
2011-12
167.18
1256.26
1306.57
116.87
2012-13
116.87
960.84
804.66
273.05
2013-14
273.05
872.43
968.24
177.24
2014-15
177.24
1174.35
1218.26
133.33
2015-16
133.33
1216.43
1111.56
238.20
Year
Opening
2005-06