Bihar Villagers Refuse to Return Mistakenly Credited Funds from Chief Minister’s Women Employment Scheme

Darbhanga, December 18, 2025: In a peculiar turn of events in Bihar, several male villagers in Jale Block, Darbhanga district, are resisting government attempts to reclaim ₹10,000 mistakenly credited to their bank accounts under the Chief Minister’s Women Employment Scheme. The villagers argue that their “vote in exchange” justifies keeping the money.

Funds Meant for Women End Up in Men’s Accounts
The Chief Minister’s Women Employment Scheme, launched on September 26 this year by Prime Minister Narendra Modi ahead of the Bihar Assembly elections, aimed to transfer ₹10,000 each to approximately 1.4 crore women entrepreneurs. However, officials from the state’s poverty-alleviation initiative ‘Jeevika’ revealed that a technical error resulted in the funds being deposited into some male villagers’ accounts as well. Notices were subsequently issued to recover the amount.

Villagers Demand “Votes Back First”
Fourteen men in Ahiyari village received recovery notices but have refused to comply. Nagendra Ram, one of the recipients, said, “We never applied for this money. If it was a mistake, why did the notice take nearly three months to arrive? First, return our votes, then ask for the money back.” Another villager, Baliram Sahni, who earns around ₹300 daily as a laborer, stated that he used the funds during Diwali and Chhath festivals to buy essential household items and livestock for his five children. He added, “We are poor. How are we expected to return such a large sum?”

Partial Compliance and Women’s Anger
So far, only seven villagers have returned the funds. Local women have expressed anger over the issue. Promila Devi said, “If the government wants our money back, it should return our votes as well.” Officials confirmed that the transfer occurred due to a technical glitch and reiterated efforts to recover the mistakenly credited amount.

The incident highlights the challenges of large-scale welfare disbursements in rural areas and raises questions about the accountability and timeliness of government recovery procedures.