Mushroom subsidy in Haryana

Haryana, VERIFIED 2026-09-13, sixth pass, on the deferral test: does Haryana's own document state, in its own words, that mushroom assistance follows central MIDH/NHM cost norms? Prior passes located a genuine Haryana-authored mushroom programme (running header "Plan Scheme for Cultivation Development & Promotion of Mushroom 2007-08" on every page of SB-65, a sanctioned Mushroom Specialist post) but read its "Pattern of Assistance" section as a scheme-wide 25%-100% range across every component, with mushroom not itemised individually, so it stayed pending, on the view that a scheme-wide range naming other components is not itself a mushroom rate.

This pass re-read SB-65 in full and additionally fetched its companion memo, SB-69 (both Wayback-recovered from the same 2021-10-23 capture of hortharyana.gov.in's pre-Angular Drupal site, `sites/default/files/`), which the prior pass had not located. SB-69 is Haryana's own Central Plan Scheme (Sharing Basis) budget-sanction memo FOR National Horticulture Mission itself, not the general Integrated Horticulture Development scheme SB-65 covers, but the direct MIDH/NHM sharing-basis line, and it answers the deferral question directly, in three separate passages:

1. "MIDH is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme for the holistic growth of the horticulture sector covering fruits, vegetables, root, mushrooms, spices, flowers and aromatic plants.", Haryana's own document naming mushroom as a component of the scheme it is administering. 2. "The SHM, Haryana will be the Nodal Agency for implementation of MIDH. The HSHDA will be the Nodal Agency of this scheme as per guidelines and norms envisaged in the scheme.", Haryana implements MIDH through its own nodal agency, per MIDH's own guidelines and norms, not a Haryana-invented schedule. 3. "GoI has approved 3 distinct clusters for the State of Haryana and accordingly GoI has approved 19 districts. The districts which are not being included under MIDH are Faridabad, Kaithal & Rewari and for these districts a separate State plan scheme for Integrated Horticulture Development has been sanctioned by Govt. on the pattern of Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture.", this is the explicit link back to SB-65: the 3 non-MIDH-cluster districts get SB-65's Integrated Horticulture Development scheme instead, "on the pattern of" MIDH, i.e. the SAME norms, administered through a different budget line because those specific districts sit outside GoI's MIDH cluster allocation.

Read together with SB-65's own text, "This scheme is planned on the pattern of National Horticulture Mission (now MIDH) and all the approved components of MIDH are incorporated under this scheme"; "subsidies are to be provided under individual component as per the norms of NHM approved by GOI ... revised time to time"; "This scheme will be implemented on the pattern of MIDH guidelines and norms as prescribed by Government of India and revised time to time", this is not silence and it is not a scheme-wide range that merely happens to omit mushroom. It is Haryana's own administrative machinery (SB-69 for 19 MIDH-cluster districts, SB-65 for the 3 remaining ones) stating plainly that EVERY component MIDH funds, mushroom named among them by SB-69 explicitly, is administered in Haryana per MIDH's own guidelines and norms, "revised time to time", an open-ended pointer to whatever MIDH's current guideline is, not frozen to a 2014-15 or 2018-19 vintage. That satisfies this project's deferral test the same way it is already satisfied for Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka: a state administering the identical central scheme, on the record, in its own words.

The rules below are therefore recorded with each rule's OWN evidence set to the central MIDH guideline's own Annexure V clause, NOT to Haryana's SB-65/SB-69, Haryana's documents never print a mushroom-specific rupee figure themselves, and citing them for a number they do not contain would misattribute it. Haryana's own SB-69 memo is cited at the SCHEME level (this record's own `evidence` field, below) as the document that establishes WHY the central figures apply here. No figure on this record is invented: every rupee amount is the same figure already independently verified against midh-2025.pdf, carried over by reference exactly because Haryana's own document says to use it.

`status` is 'unknown': SB-65 and SB-69 are both undated 2018-19 memos (see `documentUndated` below), eight years old as of this read, and no current-dated Haryana MIDH/NHM sanction memo naming mushroom was located to confirm the arrangement still holds today, only that it did in 2018-19 and that the deferral clause itself ("revised time to time") is open-ended by design. `nextReviewDue` is 90 days from `readOn`, per the archive-recovered rule.

Companion document also archived: content/sources/state-hr-2026-sb65-ihd.pdf ("Plan Scheme for Integrated Horticulture Development in Haryana State for the year 2018-19", SB No. 65), quoted above for its own deferral language and its confirmation that "all the approved components of MIDH are incorporated under this scheme"; not cited as any rule's own evidence because, like SB-69, it prints no mushroom-specific rupee figure itself.