Decrease Font SizeIncrease Font Size || Print Button


Annual Report 1994-1995

1.1 The stabilisation and structural adjustment measures, initiated since July, 1991 by now commonly referred to as "Economic Reforms" mark a watershed in the country's economic policies. For almost three decades since Independence, India's development strategy and economic policy were guided by the objectives of accelerating the growth of output and employment with social justice and equity. The emphasis was on distributive justice, regional balance and alleviation of poverty. However, the instruments of our policy to achieve our national objectives, in the absence of adequate flow of domestic and international resources, were increasingly characterised by (i) trade and exchange controls, (ii) selective access to foreign investment, (iii) discretionary controls on industrial investment and capacity expansion, (iv) dominance of the public sector in industrial activity and (v) public ownership and regulation of the financial sector. Since July, 1991 far-reaching changes have been made in each of these elements of economic policy.

1.2 Ever since the late 1970s, it was increasingly realised that many of the controls and regulations on economic activities have outlived their usefulness and were in fact hampering, rather than helping, growth and development. In response, the Government had been attempting to reform the inward oriented trade and industrial policies for almost a decade since the early 1980s. Even those somewhat milder attempts at deregulation and liberalisation started yielding fruits fairly early and tha'i India moved on to a higher growth path in the 1980s. Most of the higher growth in the 1980s came from an increase in the efficiency of investment capital as indicated by the decline in the marginal capital output ratio. This improved efficiency was, however, not large enough to fully overcome the anti-export bias of the trade regime and the Indian economy continued to operate at a level well below its potential.

1.3 Thus, India's economic experience during the 1980s can be aptly summed up as "acceleration without adequate adjust-ment". Such acceleration is hard to sustain for long. By the early 1990s, therefore, the long-term trends in the economy were giving sufficient indications that a substantial macroeconomic adjustment and reforms of the economic policy regime were necessary to sustain the higher growth rates of the 1980s. However, the economy of the country had soon to face the Gulf Crisis and the consequent uncertainties about the oil prices, together with a bunching of payment obligations which precipitated a critical situation in the already fragile balance of payments situation, coupled with the external payments problems, the economy suffered from serious inflationary pressures, scarcities of essential commodities and deterioration of fiscal discipline. By June, 1991, the annual inflation rate was running at about 16 percent and the economy was on the verge of a major crisis.

1.4 In response to the emerging crisis, the Government initiated a set of stabilisation and structural adjustment measures starting in July, 1991. The key objective of the stabilisation policy, which included reduction in the fiscal deficit, upward adjustment in the interest rate structure in the economy, containment of the growth in money supply and an exchange rate adjustment was to bring the growth of aggregate demand more or less in line with the long-term growth path of the economy, thereby reduce the domestic inflation rate and improve the balance of payments situation. In conjunction with these stabilisation measures, the structural adjustment measures, which included industrial dclicencing, decontrol of several administered prices, liberalisation of the policy regime governing international trade, technology transfer and foreign investment and deregulation of the financial sector, were aimed at improving the supply side of the economy and hence shift the long-term growth path of the economy itself. The adjustment programme was financed by quick-disbursing finance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and individual donor countries, particularly, Japan.

1.5 During the subsequent years, within the Plan budget, there has been a compositional change of expenditures, away from the conventional sectors such as energy, transport and communications towards agriculture, rural development and social sectors such as education, public health and family planning. It is well known that the revenue component of Plan expenditures on the latter sectorsr is much larger than those in the- Plan expenditures on the former sectors. Consequently, the revenue component of the Plan budget has consistently increased .since the beginning of the fiscal adjustment progrpmme. The revenue expenditures constituted about 45% of the Centre's Plan budget in 1990-91. By 1993-94, it has increased to about 57%.

1.6 The economy's response to the reform programme has been somewhat mixed. There are certain areas where the response has been fairly quick and strong but there are also areas where the response has been somewhat slow and weak. On the positive side, the programme has helped to tide over the immediate balance of payments crisis. There has been a considerable improvement in both the current account balance and the foreign exchange reserves. The large scale capital outflows through the withdrawal of foreign currency deposits by the NRIs has been stopped. Capital inflows, especially in the form of portfolio investments, have been substantial following the reforms. These positive responses of the economy on the balance of payments front have helped to restore the international confidence in the Indian economy, as evidenced by the significantly increased interest for investing in India in the international capital markets, although the international credit rating agencies have been slow in revising their country rating for India.

1.7 On a balance of considerations, the recent macroeconomic trends represent a mixed bag. While the balance of payments situation has improved substantially and exports are responding favourably to the reforms, the fiscal situation is fragile, inflation is at double digits, growth is below both its longterm trend and the Eighth Plan target. The recovery in investment is slow, thus, making longterm growth potential somewhat weak. There is, however, one silver lining in the horizon - the recent surge in foreign capital inflows or foreign savings. Utilised effectively this could form the basis of a sustained recovery in domestic capital formation and future growth prospects. There was a $9 billion net capital inflow in 1993-94, compared to $3 billion in 1992-93. Of these, the inflow of foreign investment, direct and portfolio taken together, accounted for $4.11 billion in 1993-94, as against $433 million inl992-93. The real challenge of policy, in the face of the continuing surge in capital inflows, is one of effectively absorbing these resources by a step-up in total investment and, at the same time, keeping inflation under control and avoiding the real appreciation of the exchange rate through prudent fiscal policy and open market operation, withdrawing the excess liquidity and protecting the competitiveness of he export sector.

1.8 Stepping up investment should form the key objective of further reform measures. Structural adjustment based on deregulation and improved domestic and international competitiveness raises efficiency and potential output by shifting resources from losing industries to more profitable ones and by switching from one activity to another, requiring investment in new capacities. The success of structural adjustment policies, therefore, depends upon maintaining a high level of investment. If stabilization involves a depression of investment in the short-run, structural adjustment calls for increased investment. Such investment is also necessary to step up the growth of output allowing for increased exports and possible improvement of standards of living, both of which are necessary for achieving the objectives of reforms. Broadly, the challenges here are two-fold: restoring public sector investment and reviving private investment. The public sector accounts for about half of the gross domestic investment. Its capacity to invest has been eroded over time due to insufficient public savings. The need for fiscal deficit reduction has further constrained public sector investment in recent years. A substantial increase in public investment can be sus-tained.ifit could be financed by larger public sector savings.

1.9 To the extent there is complementarity between public and private investment, the policies aimed at increasing public investment should also help rc\ \\ c private investment. In addition, the Government's objective should be to foster an economic environment which is conducive for private nvcstmcnl, bolli in the sectors where private investment was traditionally concentrated and in those which have been opened up to private investment only recently. Experience elsewhere shows that a stable macroeconomic environment with low inflation, moderate real interest rates and stable exchange rate is a prerequisite for sustained private investment. Macroeconomic policies should be geared to provide such a stable environment. This would have to be supplemented by a number of sector-specific policies to remove the bottlenecks on investments in key sectors such as agriculture, power, transport and telecommunication.

1.10 The Plan outlays outside the public sector enterprises form part of the Plan schemes of the Central and the State Governments and they are often a combination of capital and revenue expenditures associated with those schemes, especially in the social sector. Even if they do not add to the fixed capital formation, the Plan expenditures in the social sector contribute to the human capital formation and thereby raise the growth potential of the economy. The Plan outlay of the Centre and the States for the first three years of Eighth Plan in social sectors namely Rural Development including rural employment, health, family welfare, education, water supply and sanitation, housing, welfare of SC/ST, social security and welfare and others constitute 25.8% of the total projected Plan outlay at 1991-92 prices. The expenditures in these sectors are almost entirely provided from the budget. Although the Eighth Plan assumed the possibility of raising some extra-budgetary resources for a few sectors, the proposals do not seem to have materialised to a significant degree in the first three years. The shortfalls in these sectors are, therefore. almost entirely due to the constraints on the budgetary resources of both the Centre and the States. In the first 3 years of the current Five Year Plan (1992-95) the expenditure in the social sector as a proportion of the Eighth Plan outlay for this sector at constant prices turned out to be only 44% in the Central Sector and 48% in the State Sector as against the pro-rata projection of 60%. This represents a substantial shortfall in those sectors which are integrally associated with human capital develop-ment and which a national Plan aiming at development and social justice cannot afford. In the States, the highest shortfall has been in the health sector followed by education. In the Centre, the expenditure on health has been larger than the pro-rata projection but the shortfall has been maximum in water supply and sanitation, followed by education and family welfare.

1.11 To sum up, the challenge before the Indian economy now is how to increase the rate of growth and at the same time expand both in quality and quantity, the provision of social services. Improved competition and consequent increased efficiency, introduced by economic reforms, have started yielding results with increasing industrial output and private domestic and foreign investments. But these gains have to be consolidated and expanded, supported by a substantial strengthening of infrastructure as well as the social sectors. Physical capital formation must go hand in hand with human capital formation and development of social sectors in order to realise the objectives of economic growth with social justice and equity in income distribution and regional development. For this, the principal instrument of policy would be increased public investment and Plan expenditure. All efforts now have to be devoted to mobilizing resources to finance such Plan investments and expenditure within a framework ofmacroeconomic stability.



2.1 The Eighth Five Year Plan was launched on 1st April, 1992. The Plan Document was approved by the National Development Council in its forty-fourth meeting held in Mav, 1992,

2.2 The Eighth Five Year Plan is indicative in nature The Eighth Plan for the first time attempted to clearly define and delimit the role of the Government and the Public Sector to the most essential of activities important for society. It gives much wider space to private initiative. It focuses on the need for building up physical and social infrastructure by the State It harmonises the developmental efforts with the requirements of structural adjustment and liberalisation. The Plan recognises "human development" as the core of all developmental efforts. The sectors that contribute towards realisation of this goal are health, literacy and basic needs including drinking water, housing and welfare programmes for the weaker sections.

2.3 The Plan attempts to correct the fiscal imbalances from which the Sixth and Seventh Plan suffered. The non-inflationary manner to be adopted for funding of (he Plan in order to avoid debt trap both internally and externally, calls for a series of austerity measures which involves a reduction in Government's dissavings, higher resource mobilization both by the Centre and the States and improvement in the performance of public sector units.

2.4 The Eighth Plan recognises the essential need to involve people in the process of development. The Plan envisages substantial devolution of power to the people's organisations at the district, block and village levels. Panchayats and Nagar Palikas would have a larger role in formulating and implementing the developmental projects in their areas.

2.5 The Eighth Plan pays special attention to employment in the rural areas with the objective of eradicating poverty.

2.6  lie Plan proposes a growth rate of 5.6 per cent per annum on an average during the Plan period. The level of national investment is proposed al Rs. 7,98,000 crores and the public sector outlay at Rs. 4,34,100 crores. Consistent with the expected resources position, the size of the Plans of the States and Union Territories is projected at Rs. 1,86,235 crores and the Central Plan at Rs. 2,47,865 crores. This may be compared with the Seventh Plan outlay of Rs. 1,80,000 crores comprising Rs. 84,466 crores for the States and UTs and Rs. 95,534 crores for the Centre. The Plan outlays by broad heads of development for the Eighth Plan 1992-97 for Centre. States and Union Territories are given in Annexure 2.1.


2.7 The Five Year Plan gels operationaliscd through the mechanism of Annual Plans. The formulation of the Annual Plan provides the Planning Commission with an opportunity to assess previous year's plan performance in the various sectors and to suggest a re-orientation of policies and modifications of strategies consistent with the changing requirements so as to ensure achievement of the long term objectives.

2.8 In tlie third quarter of each financial year, the Planning Commission indicates to the Stale Governments and the Central Ministries the important objectives that should be kept in view while formulating the Annual Plan for (lie following year and to furnish their Plan proposals including physical targets and the corresponding financial outlays required, conforming to the guidelines referred to above and within the overall frame work of their respective Five Year Plans. The State Governments are advised to furnish their forecasts of financial resources including proposals for mobilising additional resources for their Annual Plans, keeping in view the resources and outlay targets fixed for the Five Year Plan etc. Accordingly, the States and Central Ministries furnish their plan proposals. The Annual Plan proposals and resource estimates of the State Governments are discussed in depth in a series of meetings during November-December with senior officers of the State Governments. Similarly, indepth discussions are held with senior officials of the Central Ministries/Departments regarding their Annual Plan proposals, during October-December of each year.

2.9 The Plan outlays arrived at in the meetings between the Deputy Chairman and the State Chief Ministers/Lt. Governors in respect of State Plans and at meetings taken by Member-Secretary, Planning Commission with the Secretaries of Central Ministries/Departments, regarding the Central Plan form the basis of budgetary-provisions for the Plan for the coming year.

ANNUAL PLANS 1992-93 AND 1993-94

2.10 For Annual Plan 1992-93, the first year of the Eighth Plan 1992-97, the Actual Expenditure for Centre. States and UTs amounts to Rs. 72,852.44 crores which is less by Rs 7,919.52 crores (nearly 1%) than the approved outlay of Rs 80,771.96 crores. The shortfall in utilisation of outlays has'been reflected both in the Central and States/UTs sectors. After allowing for inflation (9.5% in WPI), the Actual Expenditure of the Central Plan outlay, works out to Rs. 39,903 crores, which accounts for 16.1% of the Eighth Plan outlay amounting to Rs 2,47,865 crores at 1991-92 prices. The corresponding percentage share of utilisation of Eighth Plan provision in 1992-93 for States/UTs sector is 14.3%, which also, as in the case of Central Plan, fall short of the pro-rata rate of 20% for each year of the Eighth Plan.

2.11 The Annual Plan 1993-94 envisaged a total public sector outlay of Rs. 1,00,120.16 crores which on revision came down to Rs. 92,628.64 crores which is lower by 7.48% than the Budget Estimates for the Plan. The Revised Estimates of Central Plan outlay for 1993-94 amounting to Rs. 61,453.53 crores against the Budget Estimates of Rs. 63,936.16 crores represents an increase of 29.7% (in real terms allowing for inflation at 8.4% in WPI) over the Actual Expenditure for 1992-93 of Rs. 43,693.83 crores. While the Central Plan outlay, on revision, was lower only marginally by 3.9%, the total outlay for States and UTs. has come down by 13.84% in the Revised Estimates. In the Central sector, the shortfall was entirely due to inadequate mobilisation of Internal and Extra Budgetary Resources (IEBR) by the Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs) and various Ministries/Departments even after providing more Budget Support in the Revised Estimates. The main reasons for the shortfall in States Plans were deterioration in the balance of current revenues, erosion in the contribution of State Electricity Boards and State Road Transport Corporations, negative opening balances, mounting non-plan expenditure and shortfalls in the collection of small savings etc.


2.12 The total public sector outlay for the Annual Plan 1994-95 has been fixed at Rs. 1,12,197.12 crores. This represents an increase of 12.06% over the approved outlay of Rs. 1,00,12016 crores for the Annual Plan 1993-94. The Central Plan which mainly aims at strengthening and providing support to the State Plans besides implementing some important Central programmes/projects/s-chemes. constitutes 62.51% of the total Public Sector Plan outlay for the Annual Plan 1994-95. The details of Plan outlays for Centre. States and Union Territories arc given in Annexure 2.2.

2.13 The Central Sector Plan for 1994-95 envisages a total Public Sector outlay of Rs. 70,140.96 crores, a step up of 9.70% in nominal terms over the approved outlay of Rs. 63,936.16 crores for the previous year. In financing the Central Plan outlay nearly 61.11% of the resources i.e. Rs. 42,863.41 crores ars to be raised by the Central Public Sector Undertakings and various Ministries/Departments through Internal and Extra-Budgetary Resources (1EBR) and only the remaining Rs. 27,277.55 crores are to be met from the Budgetary Support. The resource mobilisation through 1EBR in financing the Central Annual Plan 1994-95 is higher by about 5.33% than the 1EBR in the Annual Plan 1993-94. The Budgetary Support (BS) for the Annual Plan 1994-95 has been stepped up by 17.36% over that of the Annual Plan 1993-94. This step up in the BS is quite significant keeping in view the financial constraints and the burden imposed on account of the financial discipline aimed at reducing the fiscal deficit.

2.14 The envisaged Plan outlay for States/UTs (including Special Area Programmes) is fixed at Rs. 42,056.16 crores for the Annual Plan 1994-95. This is higher by 16.23% over the budgetted outlay of Rs. 36,184 crores for the Annual Plan 1993-94.


(i) Overview

2.15 The overall public sector plan outlay during the Eighth Five Year Plan (1992-97) amounts to Rs. 4,34,100 crores at 1991-92 prices. The share of the Central Plan in this amounts to Rs. 2,47,865 crores or 57.1% whereas the share of State Plans amounts to Rs. 1,79,985 crores or 41.5%. The Plans of Union Territories account for the remaining share of Rs. 6,250 crores, or 1.4% of the overall Eighth Plan Public Sector outlay. A review in real terms (i.e after allowing for inflation) assuming that the Revised Estimates for 1993-94 and Budget Estimates for 1994-95 would materialise, has revealed that the plan performance in financial terms during the first three years of the Eighth Plan (1992-95) accounts for about 59% of.the approved Eighth Plan outlay in the Central Sector. The corresponding proportion works out to about 44% and 62% for State Plans and UT Plans respectively. Thus in the case of Central Plan, the shortfall in plan expenditure during the first three years of the Eighth Plan has been marginal vis-a-vis the pro-rata rate of 60% of the approved Eighth Plan outlay whereas there has been no shortfall in the case of UT Plans. In the Central sector, 61% of the outlay envisaged for the Eighth Plan has been provided in the first three Annual Plans (1992-95). Allocations in infrastructure sectors such as energy, transport and communications range between 60 to 70 percent of the five year outlay. However, there have been serious shortfalls in the plan provision as well as expenditure of States for the first three Annual Plans vis-a-vis their Eighth Plan approved outlays. During the period 1992-95, about 48% of the total outlay envisaged in the Eighth Plan for States sector has been provided, the shortfall in which was mainly due to the inability of most of the States to mobilise their own resources adequately.

2.16 A statement showing the Plan outlays and progress of expenditure during the first three years of Eighth Plan (1992-97) for Centre. States and Union Territories is given in Annexure 2.3. The details of overall expenditure by major heads of development during the first three years of Eighth Plan, vis-a-vis the expenditure for Seventh Plan and two subsequent seperate Annual Plans can be seen in Annexure 2.4.

(ii) Infrastructure Sector

2.17 The shortfalls in overall Plan expenditures of States during the first three years of the Eighth Plan reflect serious shortfalls in crucial infrastructure sectors like power, roads and bridges, road transport, etc. In the case of power, the expenditure during 1992-95 constitutes hardly 43% of the approved Eighth Plan outlay of States in this sector, thereby leading to a shortfall in expenditure by about 17% points in pro-rata terms. Similarly expenditure during 1992-95 in respect of roads and bridges constitutes only about 52% whereas the corresponding proportion in respect of road transport is still lower at about 42%, which means a shortfall by about 8% points and 18% points in the case of roads and bridges, and road transport respectively in " pro-rata terms. Though the overall shortfall vis-a-vis Plan outlay in the Central Sector during 1992-95 has been marginal, crucial sectors like power and ports have witnessed noticeable shortfalls in plan expenditure. Thus, in the case of the power sector plan expenditure during 1992-95 works out to only 51% of the approved Eighth Plan outlay whereas the corresponding share in respect of ports is much lower at 36%. In pro-rata terms, this means a shortfall by 9% points in the power sector and 24% points in the case of ports. Keeping in view the importance of infrastructure sector for overall economic growth as well as for attracting private investment to make good the deficiency in public sector investment caused by severe resource crunch, it is necessary to protect the plan outlays of crucial infrastructure industries in both Central and State sectors.

(iii) Social Sector

2.18 There have been serious shortfalls in plan expenditures in the social sector (including Rural Development) in respect of both Central and State Plans. The overall social sector expenditure during 1992-95 accounts for only 48% of the approved Eighth Plan outlay in the case of States. The corresponding proportion in respect of Centre is 46 percent. In view of the social, cost involved in structural adjustment process initiated in July, 1991, it is necessary to ensure full protection of approved plan outlays in social sector.

(iv) Resource Mobilisation

2.19 The details given above have clearly brought out the fact that the shortfalls in plan expenditure in Stale Sector have been more serious than in the Central Sector. The main reason for shortfalls in plan expenditure of Stales has been their inability to raise resources for financing their plans as per their commitments made at the time of Annual Plan discussions. As a result, inspite-of the increase in the share of States in total budgetary support to public sector plan from 33.3% in the Seventh Plan to 41.8% during the first three years of the Eighth Plan (1992-95), their share in the total public sector plan outlay has come down from 40% in-the Seventh Plan to 35% during the first three years of the Eighth Plan.

2.20 It is therefore necessary to step up resource mobilisation efforts so as to protect the approved plan outlays during the remaining period of the Eighth Plan, especially the 1995-96 and 1996-97 Annual Plans. In this regard, earnest efforts are required to improve the operational" efficiency of Stale level Public Enterprises (SLPEs), especially the State Electricity Boards (SEBs) and State Road Transport Corporation (SRTCs) so as to derive efficiency gains from these enterprises and thereby provide the much-needed resource for financing the State Plan outlays.

2.21 As regards the Central Sector, analysis has shown that there ' ive been serious shortfalls in plan expenditure in certain key infrastructure industries and in the social sector. In order to ensure the flow of funds to these sectors it is necessary to improve the performance of the Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) so as to minimise their dependence on budgetary support. A substantial amount of budgetary support going to them now, could therefore, be diverted to key infrastructure industries and the social sector


2.22 The Minimum Needs Programme (MNP) specifically designed for alleviation of poverty in the country with its main focus of attention on items of social consumption forms part of the developmental activities under social sector. The areas covered under MNP include education, rural health and sanitation. Public Distribution System, improvement of urban slums etc. The State/UT-wise breakup of approved outlays for various components for 1994-95 is given in Annexure 2.5.


2.23 The Annual Plan \W"-96 is being formulated keeping in view the broad priorities ai-d thrust areas laid down for the Eighth Five Year Plan. Despite prevailing resources constraints, due care is being saken to protect the Plan outlays for th{: Crucial infrastructure and social sectors, keeping in view the importance of infrastructure sector for overall economic growth as well as for attracting private investment to make good the deficiency in public sector investment caused by severe resource crunch and the social cost involved in structural adjustment process initiated in July, 1991.


Sl. No Heads of Development CENTRE STATES and UTs TOTAL
Outlay %-age to total Outlay %-age to total Outlay %-age to total
1 Agriculture s Allied Services ($) 12618.00 5.09 42374.50 22.75 54992.50 12.67
2 Rural Development 24170.00 9.75 10255.36 5.51 34425.36 7.93
3 Energy 66795.00 26.95 48766.09 26.19 115561.09 26.62
4 Industry and Minerals 37539.00 15.14 9382.75 5.04 46921.75 10.81
5 Transport 40977.00 16.53 14948.57 8.03 55925.57 12.88
6 Social Services 34445.45 13. 90 44566.45 23.93 79011.90 18.20
7 Others (*) 31320.55 12.64 9191.12 4 . 94 40511.67 9.33
8 Area Programmes      6750.16 3.62 6750.16 1.56.
  GRAND TOTAL 247865.00 100.00 186235.00 100.00 434100.00 100.00

($) Include Agriculture and Irrigation sectors.
(*) Include Communications, Science Technology s Environment, General Economic Services and General Services.


Sl. No. Heads of Development CENTRE STATES/UTs TOTAL
Outlay %-age to total Outlay %-age to total Outlay %-age to total
1 Agriculture and Allied Services ($) 2898.41 4 .13 9442.03 22.45 12340.44 11.00
2 Rural Development 6036.00 8.61 2591.35 6.16 8627.35 7.69
3 Energy 22856.71 32.59 10058.63 23. 92 32915.34 29.34
4 Industry and Minerals 10393.66 14.82 2172.02 5.16 12565.68 11.20
5 Transport 11343.42 16.17 3565.38 8.48 14908.80 13.29
6 Social Services 7380.96 10.52 10667.57 25.37 18048.53 16.09
7 Others (*) 9231.80 13.16 2011.64 4.78 11243.44 10.02
8 Area Programmes     1547.54 3.68 1547.54 1.37
  GRAND TOTAL 70140.96 100.00 42056.16 100.00 112197.12 100.00

($) Include Agriculture and Irrigation sectors.
(*) Include Communications, Science Technology and Environment, General Economic Services and General Services.


Sl No Sector Eighth Plan
Annual Plan
Approved Outlay
Annual Plan
Actual Expenditure

Annual Plan

Annual Plan 1994-95



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Centre 247865.00 48407.08 43693.83 63936.16 61453.53 70140.96
2 States 179985.00 31073.88 27916.69 34694.50 29780.61 39992.66
3 Union Territories 6250.00 1291.00 1241.92 1489-50 1394.50 2063.50
  Total 434100.00 80771.96 72852.44 100120.16 92628.64 112197.12


Sl NO HEADS OF DEVELOPMENT 7th Plan 1985-90 Expenditure at current prices Annual Plans 1990-92 at current prices Eighth Plan 1992-97 at 1991-92 prices 1992-95 Anticipated Expenditure at 1991-92 prices 1992-95 Expenditure as %-age of 8th Plan for the sector
        (1) (2) i3) (4) (5)


12793 7256 22467 12507 55.67
(5.85) (5.89) (5.18) (5.41)    
2 IRRIGATION, COMMAND AREA 16590 8206 32525 13534 41.61
  DEVELOPMENT and FLOOD CONTROL (7.58) (6.66) (7.49) (5.85)   
3 AREA PROGRAMMES 3470 2053 6750 3488 51.67
         (1.59) (1.67) (1.55) (1.51)   
4 RURAL DEVELOPMENT 15247 8292 34425 17224 50.03
       (6.97) (6.73) (7.93) (7.45)   
5 ENERGY 61811 36835 115561 66750 57. 76
        (28.26) (29.92) (26.62) (28.86)       
54 .19
7 TRANSPORT 29549 17388 55926 32479 58.07
     (13.51) (14.12) (12.88) (14.04)  
8 COMMUNICATIONS 8425 6562 25110 15645 62.31
           (3.85) (5.33) (5.78) (6.76)   
9 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND 3024 1621 9042 3069 33.94
   ENVIRONMENT (1.38) (1.32) (2.08) (1.33)   
10 GENERAL ECONOMIC SERVICES 2249 1598 4550 3673 80.73
         (1.03) (1.30) (1.05) (1.59)   
11 SOCIAL SERVICES 34960 19906 79012 36311 45.96
       (15.98) (16.17) (18.20) (15.70)   
12 GENERAL SERVICES 1514 467 1810 1166 64.42
      (0.69) (0,38) (0.42) (0.50)   
  GRAND TOTAL 218731 123122 434100 231274 53.28

Figures in brackets indicate the percentage share of each sector to the total.

Annexure 2.5 Approved outlay for Minimum Needs Programme for 1994-95 (Rs. lakhs)

Sl. NO. States/UTs Education Rural Health Rural Water Supply Rural Sanitation Rural Electrification Rural Roads
Elementary Adult
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Andhra Pradesh 2649.00 1100.00 800.00 4268.00 300.00 0.00 760.00
2. Arunachal Pradesh 3007.00 100.00 346.05 1023.00 75.00 400.00 1463.00
3. Assam 11626.00 349.00 6 1890.00 3846.00 70.00 500 .00 250.00
4 . Bihar 9299.00 1000.00 2700.00 5500.00 300.00 300 . 00 7250.00
5. Goa 409.00 38.00 232.00 375.00 100.00 0.00 0.00
6. Gujarat 1451.00 395.00 1718.00 16781.00* 400.00 # 0.00 700.00
7 . Haryana 3424.00 200.00 900.00 2260.00 30.00 0.00 5.00
8. Himachal Pradesh 2924.00 60.00 1257.00 1150.00 1040.00 0.00 1355.00
9. Jammu and Kashmir 3449.00 103.00 1662.00 3715.00 (500.00) 0.00 898.00
10. Karnataka 12904.00 912.00 3438.00 8741.00 116.00 0.00 4091.00
11 . Kerala 0.00 0.00 506.00@ 4798.00 100.00 0.00 0.00
12. Madhya Pradesh 10165.00 680.00 3350.00 4968.00 232.00 1900.00 2500.00
13. Maharashtra 5265.00 735.00 3566.00 13000.00 118.00 # 0.00 11398.00
14. Manipur 449.00 53.00 225.00 770.00 100.00 675.00 837.00
15. Meghalaya 1950.00 100.00 500.00 1135.00 35.00 250.00 660.00
16. Mizoram 575.00 18.00 328.00 340.00 10.00 720.00 638.00
17. Nagaland 487.00 7.00 175.00 310.00 15.00 # 0.00 550.00
18. Orissa 4352.00 784.00 1489.47 3235.00 170.00 800.00 4750.00
19. Punjab 1233.00 150.00 1000.00 3300.00 100.00 0.00 0.00
20. Rajasthan 11000.00 410.00 2950.00 7265.00 (90.00) 2200.00 3920.00
21. Sikkim 660.00 12.00 250.00 380.00 20.00 0.00 660.00
22. Tamil Nadu 4251.00 1924.00 2679.00 5999.00 1.00 0.00 1850.00
23. Tripura 1700.00 80.00 450.00 874.00 25.00 705.00 890.00
24. Uttar Pradesh 21152.00 440.00 4295.00 7875.00 1600.00 6500.00 14500.00
25. West Bengal 2949.00 526.00 1107.00 2484.00 4.00 1050.00 950.00
26. A and N Islands 655.45 6.15 372.00 400.00 40.00 0.00 0.00
27. Chandigarh 314.00 0.00 90.00 0.00 (35.00) 0.00 45.00
28. 0 and N Haveli 149.90 5.00 38.00 78.00 0.00 0.00 145.00
29. Daman 6 Oiu 90.00 3.00 45.00 63.00 5.00 0.00 34.00
30. Delhi 7666.00 52.00 0.00 400.00 (25.00) 0.00 0.00
31 . Lak shadweep 53.50 3.00 48.32 87.00 7.00 0.00 0.00
32. Pondicherry 526.86 0.14 211.00 75.00 10.00 0.00 0.00
Total-States and UTs 126785.71 10245.29 38617.84 105495.00 5023.00 16000.00 61099.00
= 5673.00
Total Central Allocation 52300.00 21400.00 0.00 89000.00 6000.00 0.00 0.00
Grand Total 179085.71 31645.29 38617.84 194495.00 11673.00 16000.00 61099.00

NB: The Rural Sanitation is a part of the water supply and sanitation sector.
The bracketed figures represent outlay for the purpose, included under Rural Development Sector.
* Includes Rs - 10200.00 lakhs kept for Rural Hater Supply but outside MNP for the project of laying pipeline in Saurashtra and Kuchchh region in Gujarat State.
@ Outlay as recomnended by Working Group and is not earmarked.
#  Provisional

Annexure 2.5(Contd)
Approved outlay for Minimum Needs Programme for 1994-95 (Rs. Lakhs)

Sl. No. States/Uts Rural Housing Improvement of urban slums Nutrition   Rural Domestic Cooking Energy P.D.S. Total
Improved Chulhas Rural Fuelwood Plantation
1 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1. Andhra Pradesh 7787.00 292.00 1600.00    125.00 0.00 19681.00
2. Arunachal Pradesh 125.00 0.00 120.00     0.00 77.00 6736.05
3. Assam 322.00 40.00 770.00     0.00 80.00 19743.00
4. Bihar 260.00 300.00 2200.00     400.00 324.00 29833.00
5. Goa 20.00 0.00 56.00     0.00 5.00 1235.00
6. Gujarat 1715.00 325.00 10700.00     331.00 45.00 34561.00
7. Haryana 984.00 253.00 637.00     350.00 0.00 9043.00
8. Himachal Pradesh 50.00 73.00 200.00     0.00 645.00 8754.00
9. Jaiitnu 6 Kashmir 18.00 88.00 347.00     78.00 141.00 10499.00
10. Karnataka 8053.00 859.00 1399.00    300.00 0.00 40813.00
11. Kerala 200.00 110.00 390.00     0.00 10.00 6114.00
12. Madhya Pradesh 800.00 582.00 3000.00     250.00 310.00 28737.00
13. Maharashtra 1800.00 1500.00 1000.00    0.00 0.00 38382.00
14. Manipur 0.00 0.00 165.00     0.00 34.00 3308.00
15. Meghalaya 60.00 40.00 238.00     100.00 31.00 5099.00
16. Mizoram 10.00 10.00 115.00    100.00 42.00 2906.00
17. Nagaland 0.00 0.00 154.00    0.00 79.00 1777.00
18. Orissa 100.00 56.00 1443.00    240.00 50.00 17469.47
19. Punjab 0.00 0.00 200.00    0.00 4.00 5987.00
20. Rajasthan 468.00 400.00 800.00    296.00 243.00 29952.00
21. Sikkim 22.00 6 .00 170.00    0.00 45.00 2225.00
22. Tamil Nadu 200.00 330.00 10043.00    118.00 157.00 27552.00
23. Tripura 80.00 55.00 730.00    40.00 10.00 5639.00
24 . Uttar Pradesh 1915.00 785.00 2650.00    362.00 10.00 62084.00
25. West Bengal 31.01 500.00 744.00     165.00 12.54 10522.55
26. A s N Islands 0.00 0.00 34.74    0.00 81.77 1590.11
27. Chandigarh 1.00 300.00 3.00   0.00 31.70 784.70
28. D and N Havel i 30.00 0.00 37.94    0.00 10.00 493.84
29. Daman and Diu 3.81 3.50 25.00    0.00 0.60 272.91
30. Delhi 0.00 900.00 1000.00    0.00 70.00 10088.00
31. Lakshadweep 0.00 0.00 15.00    0.00 0.00 213.82
32. Pondicherry 98.00 40:00 250.00    0.00 16.00 1227.00
  Total-States S UTs 25152.82 7847.50 41236.68 0.00 3255.00 2565.00 443322.85
+ (650.00)
= 443972.85
Total Central Allocation 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100.00 3400.00 1235.00 175435.00
Grand Total 25152.82 7847.50 41236.68 2100.00 6655.00 3800.00 619407.85


EIGHTH PLAN 1992-97- Rs. 434100 Crores