CONTINGENT SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEMESS FOR UNORGANISED WORKERS IN INDIA

HIVOS KNOWLEDGE PROGRAMME PAPER 4 2010 THE LONG ROAD TO SOCIAL SECURITY JAIN VARINDER CONTINGENT SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEMESS FOR UNORGANISED WORKERS IN INDIA AN INVENTORY OF CENTRAL AND STATE-LEVEL INITIATIVES CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Trivandrum, Kerala, India

drum, Kerala, India Credit This inventory was prepared by Mr. Prof. K.P. Kannan (CDS). Varinder Jain, Research Associate, under the guidance and direction of This work is an outcome of the research project being coordinated by Professors Jan Breman and KP Kannan and supported by Hivos, The Netherlands. The opinion expressed are those of the authors only and do not necessarily represent the views of the coordinating institutes and the funding agency. Colophon Author: Jain Varinder, Former Research Associate, Social Security Research project, Centre for Development Studies and Assistant Professor of Economics, Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur First published in 2010 by the Hivos Knowledge Programme Humanist Institute for Co-operation with Developing Countries P.O. Box 85565 2508 CG The Hague The Netherlands www.hivos.net Amsterdam Instituut for Science Research (AISSR), University of Amsterdam Department of Political Science Oudezijds Achterburgwal 237 1012 DL Amsterdam The Netherlands www.aissr.uva.nl Centre for Development Studies Prasanth Nagar, Ulloor Trivandrum 695 011 Kerala India www.cds.edu design: Tangerine Design & communicatie advies, Rotterdam, The Netherlands This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike Works 3.0 Netherlands License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licences/by-sa/3.0/nl/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

CONTINGENT SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEMES FOR UNORGANISED WORKERS IN INDIA AN INVENTORY OF CENTRAL AND STATE-LEVEL INITIATIVES

4 Contingent social security schemes for unorganised workers in India Jain Varinder 2010

Table of Contents The Long Road to Social Security 7 Introduction 10 Part I National Acts and Scheme 11 1. National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 11 2. The Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act 2008 14 2.1. Rashtriya Swasthaya Bima Yojana 14 2.2. Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme 16 2.3. National Family Benefit Scheme 19 2.4. Janani Suraksha Yojana 22 2.5. National Scheme for Welfare of Fishermen and Training and Extension 23 1. Development of Model Fishermen Villages 23 2. Group Accident Insurance for Active Fishermen 23 3. Saving cum Relief 23 4. Training and Extension 24 2.6. Janashree Bima Yojana (JBY) 25 2.7. Aam Admi Bima Yojana (AABY) 26 2.8. Handloom Weavers Comprehensive Welfare Scheme 26 A. Health Insurance Scheme 26 B. Mahatma Gandhi Bunkar Bima Yojana 27 2.9. Handloom Artisans Comprehensive Welfare Scheme 27 A. Rajiv Gandhi Shilpi Swasthya Bima Yojana (RGSSBY) 27 B. Bima Yojana for Handicrafts Artisans 28 2.10. Pension to Master Craft Persons 28 3. Other National-level Schemes 28 3.1. Indira Gandhi National Widow Pension Scheme 28 3.2. Indira Gandhi National Disability Pension Scheme 29 4. National Welfare-Fund Acts and their Benefit Structure 29 A. Cess Amount 29 B. Benefit Structure 29 C. Operational Performance of the Welfare Funds 30 5. Umbrella Legislation for the Construction Workers 31 Part II State-LEVEL Schemes 32 List of working papers The Long Road to Social Security 63

The Long Road to Social Security Introduction to the paper series India could rightly be characterised as one of the few large and growing economies with a vast informal sector i.e. one dominated by a large number of very small enterprises consisting of the self-employed as well as hired labour without any employment and/or social security. The National Commission on Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (referred to as National Commission henceforth) set up by the Government of India in 2004 to take stock of the informal economy has drawn public attention to the pitiable plight of the labouring poor. The series of reports brought out until 2009 highlight the manifold problems of livelihood insecurity faced by an overwhelming majority of the people. Not being paid enough for the work performed is a major cause of vulnerability but that deficiency in economic status is compounded by a social identity which fixes the people concerned at the bottom of the heap. The labouring poor by and large hail from categories in the lower ranks of society: Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, members of Muslim community and other communities classified as Other Backward Classes in official statistics. Lack of schooling or of opportunities for skilling and a dearth of social capital in general tend to hold them back from making their way up in mainstream society. From the marginal positions they occupy both in economy and society these people lack voice and agency to move up the occupational ladder. As part of a strategy of levelling-up, three schemes in particular were placed high on the agenda namely, (a) the provision of employment on public works, (b) a package of contingent social security including insurance against failing health, and (c) social benefits for the non-labouring poor. In 2008 the Unorganized Workers Social Security Act was passed by government. This act basically seeks to bring a modicum of relief for people at the bottom of the economy unable to take care of their own subsistence since they lack the means (property, assets) to do so and in addition have lost their labour power either temporarily or indefinitely. Thus, whatever support made available is targeted on the non-labouring poor who should actually be classified as destitute. The idea was to establish a National Social Security Authority, consisting of a Board equipped with central funding from which the benefits granted would be dispensed to administrations and agencies operating at state or sub-state level. But what has been the impact of the social security schemes in operation at the national level on the targeted segments of the workforce in the informal economy? This is the main question taken up in this 17-volume paper series. So, what has been the impact of the social security schemes in operation at the national level on the targeted segments of the workforce in the informal economy? A nation-wide organisational structure has not materialised due to downright unwillingness in the policy and political circuit to do so. Already early on the aim to set up a national framework charged with the task to provide basic social security for the workforce in the informal economy was defeated by a strong coalition of forces dead-set against fixing a floor of labour rights and labour standards. Nor are the provisions stipulated in the 2008 Act mandatory to be granted at the state level. So what has been the impact at state level (eg. in Punjab, Gujarat, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala)? It will come as no surprise that the answers in this series of papers show a good deal of variability. In the first place because the government interventions have not been simultaneously throughout the country. Further, states were given a free hand to add or expand on the core welfare benefits prescribed by the central government. And lastly, not each and every provision has been implemented with the same commitment, rigour and zeal throughout the country. As for the role of civil society, they could be of crucial importance. Since the state fails to reach out to its clientele in need of social care and, the other way around, these people do not know how and where to find access to their entitlements, mediation is of the essence to break through the impasse. Civil society could take this bridging role. Indeed, in many regions of the country a wide range of non- government organisations is active in providing provisions for the needy segments of the population. However social security schemes undertaken by NGOs account for only a tiny fraction, about 1.5 per cent in 2005, of the workforce in the informal economy. In other words, their spread, reach and impact among the labouring poor should not be exaggerated. One of the explanations for their modest contribution is the unwillingness of the bureaucratic and political apparatus in many states to allow what is called the voluntary sector to operate independent from official surveillance. Government is anxious to exercise close control over civil society. While states do not provide what they should, they also do not tolerate intrusion of other stakeholders into the civil terrain which they consider their own prerogative.

So what do we recommend? Given the urgency of ensuring the livelihood security of the vast mass of the labouring poor in India that will also enable them to acquire a measure of human dignity; we recommend the setting of a national agenda for social security. More details can be found in paper 5, other recommendations can be found in the different papers. This paper series is the result of a collaborative endeavour between the Centre for Development Studies in Trivandrum and the Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research of the University of Amsterdam and has been supported by the Hivos Knowledge Programme. The following methodology was used to monitor the implementation of the various social security schemes. From the very beginning of our project, which lasted from the beginning of 2010 until the first quarter of 2012, our aim has been to highlight the wide diversity that exists. That is why we decided to work in five states - Punjab, Gujarat, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala- that are sufficiently distinct from each other in their political, economic and social configurations and situated in different parts of the country. Local researchers were invited based on their multi-disciplinary research expertise and keen interest. We did not insist on a uniform research design and encouraged latitude in order to avoid becoming entrapped in a standard operational frame which would hide instead of expose contrasting methods of intervention and their outcome. At the same time, however, the favoured approach has been a combination of macro-level and micro-level queries, arising from the need to confront secondary data as reported in official statistics with quantitative and qualitative data sets collected by either conducting surveys or in the format of more localised case studies. We have not differentiated our investigations along the rural-urban divide. Most local-level reports included in this volume relate to rural settings. While one could argue that the thrust of deprivation is within the countryside, this should be no excuse to ignore the down and out hanging around in the towns and cities. Finally, and in addition to the state specific contributions, three participants were commissioned to write analytical papers appraising the legal status of labour rights, the social fabric of the labouring poor and the regime of informality in the political economy. Trivandrum/Amsterdam, June 2012

CONTINGENT SOCIAL SECURITY CCONTINGENT SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEMES FOR UNORGANISED WORKERS IN INDIA AN INVENTORY OF CENTRAL AND STATE-LEVEL INITIATIVES 9 Contingent social security schemes for unorganised workers in India Jain Varinder 2010

Introduction As per the estimates provided by the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS), the unorganised workers constitute 92.37 percent of the Indian workforce out of which, 86.01 percent eke out their living by performing various activities related to the unorganised sector whereas 6.36 percent work as unorganised workers in the organised segment. Exposure to various vulnerabilities is the common plight of these workers. Lack of access to social security benefits especially the contingent social security to such large chunk of the Indian workforce has been the major factor that played a large role in the intensification of the vulnerability experience among these workers. So, in order to mitigate their plight, there has been an emerging concern among the researchers. They have argued for extending the (contingent) social security cover to the unorganised workers. But, at the Government side, the effort remained largely confined to the provision of old age pension, etc. to the households living below the poverty line. There has been no major intervention by the Central Government till the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government assumed its office in 2004, who, in order to fulfill its electoral commitments, has enacted (in 2005) a legislation aimed at the provision of employment guarantee to the rural households. It has also enacted another legislation in 2008 to provide social security to the unorganised workers. Besides these Central-level initiatives, some states have already made efforts to provide contingent social security to unorganised workers through the enactment of various Acts, creation of welfare funds and the initiation of social security schemes. This inventory on contingent social security aims at documenting these initiatives undertaken by the Centre and the States. While doing so, it elaborates on the nature and status of various measures undertaken by them. It is also worth mentioning that while preparing this inventory, we have taken care of including both the legislations (that enforce constitutional commitment) and the schemes (that sometimes may have transitional character) so as to have a comprehensive stock of all sorts of measures undertaken by the Government to mitigate the plight of unorganised workers. This inventory has two main parts: the first part elaborates on the national-level Acts and schemes and the second part describes the schemes undertaken by various states. 10 Contingent social security schemes for unorganised workers in India Jain Varinder 2010

Part I National Acts and Scheme 1. National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 A major objective of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 has been to enhance the livelihood security of rural households by way of providing at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment (in a year) to those individuals who volunteer to do unskilled manual work. By this way, this Act also aims at creating durable assets and strengthening the livelihood resource base of the rural poor. With its rights-based framework and demand driven approach, it provides an entitlement with legal backing to the working masses in the rural areas. Besides this, it has many other attractive features such as: It adopts incentive-disincentive structure for the State Governments to provide employment. The Centre meets 90 per cent of the cost of employment provision. The wage rates are as per minimum wages. The workers are to be paid uniformly irrespective of gender and this wage payment is to be made within 15 days. It makes provision for the payment of unemployment allowance in case the government fails to provide employment to the applicants within a stipulated period of time. It emphasises on carrying out labour intensive works in the rural areas and stipulates the share of labour and capital cost in the 60 to 40 ratio. It prohibits the use of contractors and the middle-men. It also mandates 33 percent participation for women. This Act came into force on February 2, 2006. The employment scheme under this Act (NREGS) was introduced (in phase one) in 200 of the most backward districts of the country. Following which, an additional 130 districts were included in phase two (2007-08). As per the initial target, NREGS was to be expanded countrywide in five years. However, in order to bring the whole nation under its coverage and keeping in view the demand, the Scheme was extended to all the remaining rural districts of India from April 1, 2008. 11 Contingent social security schemes for unorganised workers in India Jain Varinder 2010

Table 1a Selective indicators reflecting State-wise performance of NREGS, 2008-2009 Hhs. demanded work during the year (in '000) Hhs. provided work during the year (in '000) Days of work generated (in Lakh) Average days of work per household Hhs. who ve availed 100 days of work (in '000) SC ST Women Days work Lakh) of (in Share (%) in state total Days of work (in Lakh) Share (%) in state total Andhra Pradesh 5699.56 5699.56 2735.45 47.99 483.06 715.02 26.14 354.36 12.95 1590.78 58.15 Bihar 3822.48 3822.48 991.75 25.95 102.60 496.55 50.07 26.33 2.65 297.75 30.02 Chhattisgarh 2271.19 2270.42 1243.18 54.76 251.67 203.97 16.41 513.64 41.32 589.69 47.43 Gujarat 850.69 850.69 213.07 25.05 49.16 26.99 12.67 107.73 50.56 91.24 42.82 Haryana 171.79 162.93 69.11 42.42 9.86 36.65 53.03 0.00 0.00 21.18 30.65 Himachal Pradesh 453.72 445.71 205.28 46.06 50.19 68.80 33.52 15.99 7.79 80.09 39.02 Jammu & Kashmir 214.39 199.17 78.80 39.56 7.64 6.67 8.46 21.61 27.42 4.54 5.76 Jharkhand 1576.86 1576.35 749.97 47.58 95.47 135.78 18.10 299.74 39.97 213.81 28.51 Karnataka 906.50 896.21 287.64 32.10 27.01 79.89 27.77 39.91 13.87 145.03 50.42 Kerala 698.68 692.02 153.75 22.22 14.34 29.94 19.47 14.23 9.26 130.70 85.01 Madhya Pradesh 5207.86 5207.67 2946.97 56.59 979.03 525.07 17.82 1379.55 46.81 1275.39 43.28 Maharashtra 907.78 906.30 419.85 46.33 32.51 69.31 16.51 185.44 44.17 194.06 46.22 Orissa 1220.60 1199.01 432.58 36.08 52.46 87.55 20.24 154.90 35.81 162.58 37.58 Punjab 149.90 149.90 40.27 26.86 3.97 29.89 74.22 0.00 0.00 9.91 24.61 Rajasthan 6375.31 6373.09 4829.55 75.78 2631.89 1390.40 28.79 1122.52 23.24 3241.04 67.11 Tamil Nadu 3345.65 3345.65 1203.59 35.97 508.12 725.39 60.27 20.93 1.74 958.87 79.67 Uttar Pradesh 4338.49 4336.47 2272.21 52.40 647.53 1216.90 53.56 44.57 1.96 411.46 18.11 Uttarakhand 298.74 298.74 104.33 34.92 12.63 28.33 27.15 5.37 5.15 38.46 36.86 West Bengal 3025.85 3025.85 786.61 26.00 23.05 294.55 37.45 116.53 14.81 208.66 26.53 North Eastern States 3957.51 3633.97 1863.96 51.29 538.52 167.72 9.00 1075.90 57.72 689.47 36.99 All-India 45518.91 45115.36 21632.86 47.95 6521.27 6336.16 29.29 5501.64 25.43 10357.36 47.88 Source: http://nrega.nic.in/ on 17 th May, 2010 Days work Lakh) of (in Share (%) in state total 12 Contingent social security schemes for unorganised workers in India Jain Varinder 2010

Table 2b Selective indicators reflecting State-wise performance of NREGS, 2009-2010 Hhs. demanded work during the year (in '000) Hhs. provided work during the year (in '000) Days of work generated (in Lakh) Average days of work per household Hhs. who ve availed 100 days of work (in '000) SC ST Women Days of work (in Lakh) Share (%) in state total Days work Lakh) of (in Share (%) in state total Andhra Pradesh 6158.49 6158.49 4044.30 65.67 1395.54 998.00 24.68 594.80 14.71 2349.60 58.10 Bihar 4127.33 4127.33 1136.91 27.55 282.80 515.06 45.30 24.59 2.16 341.49 30.04 Chhattisgarh 2025.85 2025.85 1041.56 51.41 160.65 159.59 15.32 397.85 38.20 512.53 49.21 Gujarat 1612.28 1612.28 585.10 36.29 103.75 87.01 14.87 230.88 39.46 272.66 46.60 Haryana 156.41 156.41 59.03 37.74 8.84 31.63 53.58 0.00 0.00 20.55 34.81 Himachal Pradesh 499.17 497.34 284.94 57.29 48.28 95.05 33.36 24.79 8.70 131.32 46.09 Jammu & Kashmir 350.35 337.36 127.76 37.87 21.36 10.79 8.45 33.48 26.21 8.56 6.70 Jharkhand 1703.24 1702.60 842.47 49.48 133.30 135.15 16.04 362.14 42.99 288.52 34.25 Karnataka 3633.85 3535.35 2001.61 56.62 445.19 332.47 16.61 170.99 8.54 899.56 44.94 Kerala 934.27 931.22 318.68 34.22 37.75 53.77 16.87 17.80 5.59 281.36 88.29 Madhya Pradesh 4714.92 4714.59 2624.03 55.66 678.72 485.04 18.48 1188.47 45.29 1160.55 44.23 Maharashtra 591.61 591.55 274.33 46.38 22.63 70.26 25.61 90.98 33.16 108.78 39.65 Orissa 1413.37 1394.12 551.60 39.57 81.99 105.83 19.19 200.08 36.27 200.08 36.27 Punjab 272.68 271.84 76.48 28.13 7.70 60.44 79.03 0.00 0.00 20.28 26.52 Rajasthan 6522.26 6522.26 4471.09 68.55 1514.42 1193.51 26.69 1011.87 22.63 3008.86 67.30 Tamil Nadu 4373.26 4373.26 2390.75 54.67 760.69 1412.24 59.07 59.66 2.50 1982.06 82.91 Uttar Pradesh 5664.64 5480.43 3559.26 64.94 796.93 2007.86 56.41 52.74 1.48 771.36 21.67 Uttarakhand 522.30 522.30 182.39 34.92 20.66 47.49 26.04 7.37 4.04 73.46 40.28 West Bengal 3489.36 3479.92 1551.67 44.59 72.12 571.93 36.86 223.18 14.38 518.61 33.42 North Eastern States 4069.41 4060.01 2160.76 53.22 478.22 261.08 30.52 1175.01 54.38 817.62 37.84 All-India 52911.61 52570.75 28303.58 53.84 7072.72 8638.50 30.52 5869.70 20.74 13778.46 48.68 Source: http://nrega.nic.in/ on 17 th May, 2010 Days work Lakh) of (in Share (%) in state total 13 Contingent social security schemes for unorganised workers in India Jain Varinder 2010

The implementation trends reveal encouraging results. In 2008-09, 4.51 crore households were provided employment, which increased further to 5.25 crore in 2009-10. A total of 216.32 crore man-days of work has been generated throughout the country in 2008-09, which increased further to 283.03 crore in 2009-10. On an average, a household has got 47.95 days of work in 2008-09 and 53.84 days of work in 2009-10, which indicates nothing but the increasing significance of NREGS over the last two years (Table 1a & 1b). Out of the total employment generated, the women workers account for about half of the total. The SC workers got about one-third of the total employment generated and the share of ST workers have been relatively low. Together they have accounted for more than half of the total employment generated under NREGS during last two years. However, this pattern of employment provision under NREGS is not uniform across states. In 2008-09, the state of Rajasthan remains at the top in the generation of the highest average days of work. Other states of Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Jharkhand have done well in this respect. But, not much significant attainment is made by NREGS in the high income states of Punjab and Haryana. Further exploration reveals that out of the total employment generated in these states, a large part is obtained by the workers belonging to the Scheduled Castes. These have been the states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan where a relatively large number of women workers have come forward to seek employment under NREGS. The share of women workers has been very low in the states of Jammu & Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Bihar and West Bengal. 2. The Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act 2008 The Unorganised Workers Social Security Act 2008 came into force w.e.f. 16 th May, 2008 with the sole aim of providing social security to the unorganised workers. Under this Act, the definition of unorganised worker has been enlarged to include all such workers which are not covered by the existing social security legislations like EPF Act. This Act makes it mandatory for the Central Government to formulate and notify, from time to time, suitable welfare schemes for unorganised workers on matters relating to a) life and disability cover b) health and maternity benefits c) old age protection and d) any other benefits as may be determined by the Central Government. It provides for the registration of unorganised workers so as to facilitate the formulation of social security schemes for particular occupations. This Act requires the Central Government to constitute a national board (for a term of 3 years) to be known as the National Social Security Board to exercise the powers conferred on, and to perform the functions assigned to it under the Act (see Appendix). It also provides for the constitution of similar boards at the State level. Schedule I of this Act includes the following schemes as the welfare schemes: 1. Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana 2. Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme 3. National Family Benefit Scheme 4. Janani Suraksha Yojana 5. National Scheme for Welfare of Fishermen and Training and Extension 6. Janashree Bima Yojana 7. Aam Admi Bima Yojana 8. Handloom Weavers Comprehensive Welfare Scheme 9. Handloom Artisans Comprehensive Welfare Scheme 10. Pension to Master Craft Persons An outline of these schemes along with their status is provided below: 2.1. Rashtriya Swasthaya Bima Yojana Rashtriya Swasthaya Bima Yojana (RSBY) is the next most important social security cover after NREGS in terms of its coverage and the benefits. Launched on 1 st October, 2007 by the Central Government, it has 14 Contingent social security schemes for unorganised workers in India Jain Varinder 2010

emerged as the major national health insurance initiative for containing the vulnerability of poor households during medical emergencies. It provides support to the BPL families, in the participating states and districts, in case of hospitalisation. The benefits are limited to the family unit of five members and the insurance cover is up to Rs. 30,000 per family per annum. This scheme envisages the issuance of a smart card to the beneficiary so as to facilitate cashless transactions. It also ensures the portability of the health benefits as the scheme empowers the BPL families to make their choices for the hospitals as they can avail their health benefits in the empanelled hospitals throughout the country. It is implemented by the State Governments through insurance companies and the premium is shared by the Centre and State in the ratio of 75 : 25 and 90 : 10 in the case of States in the north eastern region and Jammu and Kashmir. Unlike earlier schemes, the list of ailments that can be treated under this scheme is extensive. Moreover, it also covers the transportation costs (actual with maximum limit of Rs. 100 per visit) within an overall limit of Rs. 1000. In order to encourage institutional delivery of infants among the BPL workers, the government has approved by October, 2008, the inclusion of maternity benefits under this scheme subject to the condition that the premium is within the existing limit of Rs. 750 per beneficiary. The building and other construction workers are also covered under this scheme as the government has stipulated that the premium for the scheme should be paid from the fund collected by the State Governments under the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996. On account of the fact that the government has envisaged a time period of five years for rolling out the RSBY, it urges each participating State to cover 20 per cent of their respective districts each year. Almost every large State government has expressed its intention of joining the scheme and many have already issued tender notices. A detailed outline of the state-wise performance of RSBY is provided in Table 2. Table 2 Enrollment status (cumultative) under RSBY scheme, as on May, 2010 BPL Families State BPL Families State State State Enrolled Share (%) Enrolled Share (%) Andhra Pradesh - - Kerala 1173388 7.05 Madhya Assam - - 143936 0.87 Pradesh Bihar 3146127 18.92 Maharashtra 1533129 9.22 Chandigarh 5407 0.03 Meghalaya 31031 0.19 Chhattisgarh 974701 5.86 Nagaland 39301 0.24 Delhi 218055 1.31 Orissa 418929 2.52 Goa 3505 0.02 Punjab 164091 0.99 Gujarat 682354 4.10 Rajasthan - - Haryana 691197 4.16 Tamil Nadu 149520 0.90 Himachal Pradesh 236947 1.42 Tripura 257974 1.55 Jammu & Kashmir - - Uttar Pradesh 4874726 29.31 Jharkhand 564635 3.39 Uttarakhand 53940 0.32 Karnataka 102286 0.61 West Bengal 1167599 7.02 Total 16632778 100.00 Source: http://rsby.nic.in, accessed on July 12, 2010 15 Contingent social security schemes for unorganised workers in India Jain Varinder 2010

Table 3 Number of empanelled hospitals under RSBY scheme, as on May, 2010 State Total Public Private State Total Public Private Andhra Pradesh - - - Kerala 290 133 157 Assam 6 5 1 Madhya Pradesh - - - Bihar 344 37 307 Maharashtra 790 8 782 Chandigarh 11 3 8 Meghalaya 20 15 5 Chhattisgarh 294 177 117 Nagaland 5-5 Delhi 88-88 Orissa 64 17 47 Goa 2-2 Punjab 461 145 316 Gujarat 353 94 259 Rajasthan - - - Haryana 424 21 403 Tamil Nadu 32-32 Himachal Pradesh 150 127 23 Tripura 18 18 - Jammu&Kashmir - - - Uttar Pradesh 1027 234 793 Jharkhand 136 35 101 Uttarakhand 75 45 30 Karnataka 144 51 93 West Bengal 157-157 Total 4891 1165 3726 Source: http://rsby.nic.in, accessed on July 12, 2010 It is observed that till now, a total of 166.32 lakh BPL families are enrolled under this scheme, which amount to 48.98 percent of the total BPL families. The state of Uttar Pradesh has enrolled the highest number of BPL families followed by states like Bihar, Maharashtra, Kerala and West Bengal. Keeping in view the plan of rolling out RSBY in five years, the enrollment of BPL families at such pace seems to be a remarkable achievement. As per scheme, the enrolled BPL families are eligible to get medical benefits from various empanelled hospitals. Though these benefits are available in both the public and private empanelled hospitals, the share of the private hospitals is more in almost all the states except Assam, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya and Uttarakhand. 2.2. Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme This scheme aims at providing financial assistance to the old age persons. It was launched in 1995 under the National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP). With effect from November, 2007, it has been renamed as the Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme (IGNOAPS) and its scope has been widened with a revision of its eligibility criteria from a person of 65 years old and a destitute to a person of 65 years old and belonging to a family living below poverty line according to the criteria prescribed by the Government of India. It is a centrally-sponsored scheme but from 2002-03, it has been transferred to the State Plan and the states are provided flexibility in the choice and implementation of this scheme. Nonetheless, it urges the states to make an equal contribution to the pension amount. Earlier the monthly pension amount has been Rs. 75 per beneficiary but from November, 2007 onwards, this amount has been raised to Rs. 200 with equal contribution from the states. So, this scheme aims at providing a monthly pension of Rs. 400 to the beneficiaries. These benefits are available uniformly to the rural as well as urban areas. The states are assigned the responsibility for identifying eligible beneficiaries from the BPL list prepared periodically. They are advised to disburse the pension amounts through bank / post office accounts. Moreover, they are required to make the details of beneficiaries available in the public domain. 16 Contingent social security schemes for unorganised workers in India Jain Varinder 2010

Table 4 Report expenditure and beneficiaries of National Old-age Pension scheme Year Expenditure on Old-Age Pension Beneficiaries (No. in thousands) Amount (Rs. Cr.) Share in NSAP (%) 2002-03 454.02 76.51 6697.50 2003-04 539.42 82.23 6624.00 2004-05 681.04 78.43 8079.38 2005-06 856.30 82.82 8002.59 2006-07 1726.20 87.70 8708.83 2007-08 2894.60 92.68 11514.02 2008-09 3546.90 90.42 15020.64 2009-10* 1651.01 80.72 15695.33 Note: *As on December, 2009 Source: Annual Reports of the National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP) Table 4 reports the yearly pattern of the old-age pension scheme in terms of its expenditure and beneficiaries since 2002-03. It reveals that the number of beneficiaries under this scheme has increased considerably and most of this rise has taken place during the post-2007 period. It needs to be remembered that at this juncture, besides broadening the eligibility criteria there took place a hike in the monthly pension amount from Rs. 75 to Rs. 200. As envisaged at that time, this scheme has almost attained its target of doubling the beneficiaries from its level in 2006-07. It is also revealed by above table that this scheme is a major constituent of the National Social Assistance Programme and it has accounted for a mammoth share of the total expenditure incurred under the programme. 17 Contingent social security schemes for unorganised workers in India Jain Varinder 2010

Table 5: State-wise Reported Number of Beneficiaries (in 000) Under the National Old Age Pension Scheme, 2002-03 to 2009-10 States 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10* N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Andhra Pradesh 466.00 6.96 466.00 7.04 466.00 5.77 466.00 5.82 466.00 5.35 919.23 7.98 919.23 6.12 919.23 5.86 Bihar 419.29 6.26 488.27 7.37 493.70 6.11 820.19 10.25 904.92 10.39 1415.18 12.29 2133.68 14.20 2133.68 13.59 Chhattisgarh 141.34 2.11 156.69 2.37 165.73 2.05 183.89 2.30 201.35 2.31 437.22 3.80 490.12 3.26 497.13 3.17 Goa 3.73 0.06 3.79 0.06 3.73 0.05 3.45 0.04 3.41 0.04 2.69 0.02 2.69 0.02 2.69 0.02 Gujarat 62.83 0.94 61.06 0.92 60.04 0.74 63.55 0.79 40.12 0.46 62.69 0.54 79.66 0.53 184.86 1.18 Haryana 86.00 1.28 104.11 1.57 994.77 12.31 95.80 1.20 95.80 1.10 130.31 1.13 130.31 0.87 130.31 0.83 Himachal Pradesh 22.70 0.34 22.70 0.34 22.70 0.28 22.70 0.28 41.34 0.47 53.75 0.47 85.64 0.57 85.64 0.55 J&K 31.40 0.47 1.85 0.03 46.71 0.58 64.71 0.81 66.04 0.76 77.65 0.67 123.56 0.82 97.37 0.62 Jharkhand 160.08 2.39 135.59 2.05 166.24 2.06 166.24 2.08 366.24 4.21 366.24 3.18 643.00 4.28 643.00 4.10 Karnataka 436.86 6.52 458.31 6.92 477.41 5.91 488.13 6.10 533.33 6.12 686.67 5.96 821.97 5.47 833.93 5.31 Kerala 152.47 2.28 144.05 2.17 131.35 1.63 141.77 1.77 134.41 1.54 141.96 1.23 141.96 0.95 141.96 0.90 Madhya Pradesh 389.68 5.82 411.92 6.22 448.36 5.55 683.68 8.54 453.62 5.21 532.00 4.62 931.43 6.20 1066.05 6.79 Maharashtra 585.78 8.75 443.79 6.70 819.52 10.14 659.43 8.24 742.56 8.53 828.19 7.19 1001.64 6.67 1024.36 6.53 Orissa 492.56 7.35 493.27 7.45 493.09 6.10 493.38 6.17 643.40 7.39 643.40 5.59 643.40 4.28 643.40 4.10 Punjab 26.62 0.40 26.29 0.40 45.85 0.57 45.85 0.57 45.85 0.53 61.37 0.53 166.69 1.11 159.29 1.01 Rajasthan 502.63 7.50 469.72 7.09 533.14 6.60 144.56 1.81 418.57 4.81 445.45 3.87 494.18 3.29 494.18 3.15 Tamil Nadu 475.07 7.09 477.18 7.20 467.94 5.79 481.03 6.01 495.00 5.68 580.33 5.04 988.76 6.58 888.83 5.66 Uttar Pradesh 1258.27 18.79 1253.16 18.92 1261.42 15.61 1461.48 18.26 1576.48 18.10 2558.07 22.22 2941.12 19.58 3280.51 20.90 Uttarakhand 53.22 0.79 46.73 0.71 55.40 0.69 64.25 0.80 65.75 0.76 76.39 0.66 148.69 0.99 162.14 1.03 West Bengal 332.88 4.97 309.90 4.68 291.67 3.61 451.58 5.64 467.85 5.37 451.85 3.92 1039.04 6.92 1191.72 7.59 North-Eastern States 471.89 7.05 506.19 7.64 480.67 5.95 844.25 10.55 856.36 9.83 937.65 8.14 956.19 6.37 959.93 6.12 Union Territories 126.20 1.88 143.45 2.17 153.98 1.91 156.69 1.96 90.46 1.04 105.78 0.92 137.70 0.92 155.14 0.99 All India 6697.51 100.00 6624.00 100.00 8079.39 100.00 8002.60 100.00 8708.84 100.00 11514.03 100.00 15020.64 100.00 15695.33 100.00 Note: *As on December, 2009 Source: Same as Table 4. 18 Contingent social security schemes for unorganised workers in India Jain Varinder 2010

Table 5 provides a state-wise pattern of the number of beneficiaries under IGNOAPS. The state of Uttar Pradesh has the highest number of beneficiaries for the whole period (2002-10) under consideration. In 2002-03, the state of Maharashtra has been at the second position, which was subsequently taken up by Orissa in 2003-04 and Haryana in 2004-05. It has been the state of Bihar that has remained in the second position since 2005-06. In recent years, West Bengal has occupied the third position. It is noteworthy that the number of old-age pensioners in West Bengal increased by 2.30 times in 2008-09 from that in 2007-08. As discussed above, this increase has been the result of revised criteria and enhanced pension benefit under this scheme. Nonetheless, it has been the state of Punjab where the number of old-age pensioners recorded the highest increase, i.e. by 2.72 times. 2.3. National Family Benefit Scheme This scheme was introduced on 15 th August, 1995 by the Government of India as a part of the National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP). But, it got transferred to the State Plan from 2002-03 onwards. It is implemented by the Ministry of Rural Development and the funds are disbursed by the District Planning Boards. This scheme aims at providing a lump-sum amount of money to the households below the poverty line in the event of the death of primary bread winner (any household member whose earnings contribute substantially to the household income) irrespective of the cause of death. The benefits under this scheme are available when the age of the deceased is between 18 to 64 years. The financial assistance provided under this scheme to the bereaved household is Rs. 10,000 to be paid in cash. This payment is made to such surviving member of the household of the deceased who, after local inquiry, is determined to be the head of the household. For the purpose of this scheme, the term household includes spouse, minor children, unmarried adult, minor brothers or sisters. The scheme provides the right to recover payments by the sanctioning authority in case of the provision of mistaken information about eligibility. Table 6 Reportes Expenditure and beneficiaries of National family benefit scheme Year Expenditure on National Family Benefit Scheme Beneficiaries (No. in thousands) Amount (Rs. Cr.) Share in NSAP (%) 2002-03 73.25 12.34 85.20 2003-04 69.93 10.66 209.45 2004-05 138.41 15.94 261.98 2005-06 134.35 12.99 276.73 2006-07 191.79 9.74 243.97 2007-08 176.12 5.64 334.15 2008-09 328.96 8.39 423.29 2009-10* 149.21 7.30 125.11 Note: *As on December, 2009 Source: Same as Table 4. Table 6 provides the statistics on the reported expenditure and the number of beneficiaries under this scheme since 2002-03. It is observed that this scheme remains a small constituent of the NSAP. Nonetheless, it has provided benefits to many households. In 2002-03, the number of beneficiaries has been as low as about 85,000 but there has been a sharp increase in the subsequent year when the number of beneficiaries has increased to about 2.10 lakh. Since then, barring a few years, there has been a regular increase in the number of beneficiaries. The number of beneficiaries in 2008-09 has been about five times of its number in 2002-03. 19 Contingent social security schemes for unorganised workers in India Jain Varinder 2010

The state-wise variation in the number of beneficiaries under this scheme is reported in Table 7. It is observed that in 2002-03, there have been some states like Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal with a good number of beneficiaries under this scheme. The number of beneficiaries in all these states has been more than 6000. In next year, some states like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Bihar and Jharkhand have recorded significant increase in the number of beneficiaries. In the subsequent years, the number of beneficiaries increased further under this scheme across almost all the states. It needs to be noted that in 2008-09, all the states except Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttarakhand have recorded more than 10,000 beneficiaries in this scheme. Though the number of beneficiaries across all the states has recorded an increase over the time period under consideration, these have been the states of Goa, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab where the number of beneficiaries has not ever been much significant. 20 Contingent social security schemes for unorganised workers in India Jain Varinder 2010

Table 7 State-wise Reported Number of Beneficiaries (in 000) Under the National Family Benefit Scheme, 2002-03 to 2009-10 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10* N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Andhra Pradesh 18.34 21.53 49.72 23.74 36.75 14.03 16.49 5.96 11.76 4.82 17.26 5.17 15.07 3.56 4.58 3.66 Bihar 1.76 2.06 5.25 2.51 3.27 1.25 27.92 10.09 13.80 5.65 27.48 8.22 22.42 5.30 12.47 9.97 Chhattisgarh 8.40 9.86 8.15 3.89 13.89 5.30 11.47 4.15 11.69 4.79 9.78 2.93 10.34 2.44 3.48 2.78 Goa 0.24 0.28 0.28 0.13 0.27 0.10 0.28 0.10 0.31 0.13 0.26 0.08 0.28 0.07 0.13 0.10 Gujarat 0.31 0.36 0.01 0.00 17.27 6.59 7.72 2.79 1.06 0.43 7.13 2.13 7.55 1.78 3.42 2.73 Haryana - - 4.60 2.20 4.52 1.73 4.50 1.63 - - 2.25 0.67 4.48 1.06 0.00 0.00 Himachal Pradesh 0.28 0.33 1.49 0.71 0.31 0.12 3.04 1.10 3.69 1.51 2.00 0.60 2.00 0.47 0.56 0.45 J&K 0.39 0.46 0.03 0.01 2.80 1.07 3.11 1.12 0.60 0.25 6.12 1.83 2.69 0.64 0.00 0.00 Jharkhand 1.48 1.74 5.65 2.70 4.68 1.79 3.74 1.35 5.00 2.05 4.38 1.31 19.81 4.68 5.97 4.77 Karnataka 0.42 0.50 - - 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.36 27.22 11.16 21.25 6.36 19.05 4.50 2.78 2.22 Kerala 3.20 3.76 2.33 1.11 1.90 0.73 11.74 4.24 3.64 1.49 27.61 8.26 26.36 6.23 0.00 0.00 Madhya Pradesh 6.01 7.05 22.97 10.97 28.62 10.92 33.89 12.25 37.37 15.32 40.00 11.97 44.92 10.61 5.82 4.65 Maharashtra 8.67 10.17 22.87 10.92 25.16 9.60 18.30 6.61 19.40 7.95 19.49 5.83 47.48 11.22 5.00 4.00 Orissa 1.97 2.31 1.98 0.95 0.00 0.00 4.26 1.54 13.03 5.34 30.45 9.11 33.38 7.89 0.00 0.00 Punjab 1.36 1.59 1.29 0.62 1.29 0.49 1.29 0.47 1.29 0.53 1.29 0.39 2.46 0.58 1.45 1.16 Rajasthan - - 12.20 5.82 11.65 4.45 10.43 3.77 7.04 2.89 0.70 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tamil Nadu 1.07 1.25 30.00 14.32 56.47 21.56 48.98 17.70 16.21 6.65 6.88 2.06 17.91 4.23 3.93 3.14 Uttar Pradesh 22.00 25.82 22.00 10.50 21.87 8.35 30.50 11.02 39.00 15.99 41.71 12.48 87.12 20.58 39.51 31.58 Uttarakhand 0.69 0.81 - - 8.77 3.35 3.00 1.08 1.64 0.67 0.00 0.00 5.12 1.21 0.56 0.44 West Bengal 6.24 7.33 7.33 3.50 9.95 3.80 13.30 4.80 15.50 6.35 48.13 14.40 35.26 8.33 16.53 13.21 North-Eastern States 1.95 2.28 10.56 5.04 11.54 4.40 21.08 7.62 13.96 5.72 19.20 5.75 18.43 4.35 18.44 14.73 Union Territories 0.44 0.51 0.76 0.36 1.00 0.38 0.69 0.25 0.76 0.31 0.79 0.24 1.13 0.27 0.51 0.40 All India 85.21 100.00 209.46 100.00 261.98 100.00 276.74 100.00 243.97 100.00 334.15 100.00 423.29 100.00 125.12 100.00 Note: *As on December, 2009 Source: Same as Table 4. 21 Contingent social security schemes for unorganised workers in India Jain Varinder 2010

2.4. Janani Suraksha Yojana Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY), introduced on April 12, 2005 under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), is a safe motherhood intervention. It aims at providing benefits to the pregnant women of below poverty line families and to encourage antenatal care, institutional deliveries and provision for post-partum care which is important not only for the health of the mother but has very significant effect on the health and survival of the newborn. It is a 100 per cent centrally sponsored scheme and is available to women aged 19 years and above. The benefits are limited to first two live births. In the 10 Low Performing States viz. Bihar, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Utttar Pradesh, Uttranchal, Assam and Jammu & Kashmir, however, families will be eligible for benefit for third birth also, provided the beneficiary opts for sterilization immediately after delivery (PIB, 2005b). Under this scheme, the Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) is conceived as an effective link between the Government and the poor pregnant women in the ten low performing states. Her main role is to facilitate pregnant women to avail services of maternal care and arrange referral transport. Under this scheme, cash is distributed to the poor pregnant women for institutional delivery. Table 8 provides the details of the graded scale of assistance by which an incentive of Rs. 600 and Rs. 200 is provided to ASHA in the rural and urban areas of the low performing states. The cash benefits to the mother are limited to Rs. 700 in the rural areas of both the low and high performing states. But, in case of urban areas, it provides for the cash benefit of Rs. 600 to the mother only in the low performing states. Table 8 Category of States Low Performing States (LPS) High Performing States (HPS) Source: PIB (2005b) Graded Scale of Assistance under Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) Rural Assistance Package to Mother Package for Accredited Worker Urban Total Assistance Package to Mother Accredited Worker/Dai Package 700 600 1300 600 200 800 700 NIL 700 NIL NIL NIL Total Table 9: Recorded Beneficiaries (in 000) Under Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 No. % No. % No. % Low Performing States (LPS) Assam 17.52 2.18 193.91 5.42 127.00 5.86 Bihar 0.00 0.00 50.41 1.41 62.03 2.86 Chhattisgarh 25.00 3.11 75.45 2.11 45.93 2.12 Jammu & Kashmir 9.00 1.12 55.49 1.55 10.00 0.46 Jharkhand 0.00 0.00 86.00 2.40 65.22 3.01 Madhya Pradesh 68.25 8.50 401.18 11.21 185.81 8.57 Orissa 41.10 5.12 227.20 6.35 241.34 11.13 Rajasthan 4.91 0.61 563.77 15.75 343.68 15.85 Uttar Pradesh 12.00 1.49 169.00 4.72 193.50 8.92 Uttaranchal 1.36 0.17 40.65 1.14 0.00 0.00 Sub-total (LPS) 179.13 22.29 1863.06 52.06 1274.51 58.75 High Performing States (HPS) Andhra Pradesh 167.77 20.89 505.14 14.11 193.85 8.94 Arunachal Pradesh 1.00 0.12 4.89 0.14 1.28 0.06 Goa 0.04 0.01 0.48 0.01 0.19 0.01 22 Contingent social security schemes for unorganised workers in India Jain Varinder 2010

Gujarat 12.57 1.57 153.38 4.29 26.18 1.21 Haryana 4.21 0.52 23.00 0.64 39.14 1.80 Himachal Pradesh 1.46 0.18 0.74 0.02 2.21 0.10 Karnataka 39.00 4.86 215.17 6.01 92.00 4.24 Kerala 18.20 2.27 56.00 1.56 31.03 1.43 Maharashtra 20.01 2.49 181.25 5.06 133.78 6.17 Punjab 11.60 1.44 18.78 0.52 3.15 0.15 Tamil Nadu 112.17 13.97 349.26 9.76 105.78 4.88 West Bengal 224.86 28.00 171.00 4.78 244.21 11.26 North-Eastern States 10.10 1.26 30.12 0.84 18.64 0.86 Union Territories 1.07 0.13 7.19 0.20 2.95 0.14 Sub-total (HPS) 624.06 77.71 1716.4 47.94 894.39 41.25 India 803.19 100.0 3579.46 100.0 2168.89 100.00 Source: http://www.indiastat.com; compiled from the statistics released by : Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 2029, dated 07.12.2007. Table 9 provides the statistics on the reported number of beneficiaries under the Janani Suraksha Yojana. At the all-india level, this scheme has benefitted 8.3 lakh mothers in 2005-06, which got increased substantially to 35.79 lakh in 2006-07. In 2006-07, this scheme has benefitted 21.69 lakh mothers. It becomes evident that the graded scale of assistance has brought encouraging results especially in the case of low performing states (LPS). The number of beneficiaries in these states has increased considerably over the years. Most of this increase has taken place in the state of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa. However, the states of Uttranchal, Bihar, Chattisgarh, Jammu and Kashmir and Jharkhand are still at the very low levels in terms of the coverage of beneficiaries under this scheme. 2.5. National Scheme for Welfare of Fishermen and Training and Extension This scheme was launched in 1991-92 under the title, National Scheme of Welfare of Fishermen with the sole objective of providing basic civic amenities and socio-economic security to the fishermen. This scheme has four major components: 1. Development of Model Fishermen Villages 2. Group Accident Insurance for Active Fishermen 3. Saving cum Relief 4. Training and Extension 1. Development of Model Fishermen Villages This component of the scheme aims at providing basic civic amenities such as housing, drinking water, community hall etc. to the fishermen. For availing the benefits under this component, a fishermen village must not have less than 10 houses. The eligibility condition for tube-well urges the village to contain at least 20 houses and for community hall, it must have at least 75 houses. In terms of cost, the scheme provides Rs. 50,000 for a house, Rs. 30,000 for tube-well (Rs. 35,000 in case of North Eastern Region) and Rs. 1,75,000 for community hall. 2. Group Accident Insurance for Active Fishermen Under this component, the fishermen engaged actively in fishing are provided an insurance cover against disability or accidental death. They are insured for one year for Rs. 1 lakh in case of accidental death or permanent total disability and Rs. 50,000 for permanent partial disability. 3. Saving cum Relief This component of the scheme aims at providing financial assistance to the fishermen during lean season when fishing is generally banned. Under this component, the fishermen are urged to contribute Rs. 600 during the nine months of the fishing period. A sum of Rs. 1200 is further contributed by the center and the state and this sum of Rs. 1800 is distributed to the fishermen at the rate of Rs. 600 per month for three months of lean season. 23 Contingent social security schemes for unorganised workers in India Jain Varinder 2010

4. Training and Extension By way of providing training to the fishermen, this constituent aims at updating and upgrading their knowledge and skills in modern fishing technology and for doing so, assistance is provided to the states for setting up or upgrading training facilities or the awareness centers. Table 10 provides state-wise achievement in terms of the number of beneficiaries under this scheme. It is observed that a major proportion of the beneficiary fishermen in this scheme has availed the insurance benefits. About 50 lakh fishermen have got the insurance benefits during the 10 th Plan (2002-07) period. About 15 lakh fishermen have got benefits under the Saving-cum-Relief (SCR) component and about 54 thousand have got the housing benefits. Table 10: State-wise Achievement (in terms of Number of Beneficiaries) Under National Scheme for Welfare of Fishermen and Training and Extension States 10 th Plan (2002-2007) 2007-2008 2008-2009 Housing SCR* Insurance** Housing SCR Insurance Housing SCR Insuranc e Andhra Pradesh 1000 17904 590000 2000-402742 - 14115 402742 Arunachal Pradesh 480 - - 80 - - - - - Assam 113 1688 7818 - - 3909 - - 3909 Bihar 910-120000 - - 50000 - - 50000 Chhattisgarh 338 900 87354 - - 32856-1500 32856 Goa - 350 2900 40-5000 - 718 5000 Gujarat 593-244000 344-172359 745-172359 Haryana - - - - - 7000 - - - Himachal Pradesh - 7765 21447-2220 5716-2446 6207 Jammu & Kashmir 985-42000 250-14000 - - 14000 Jharkhand 4086 2000 36000 1200-33000 600-33000 Karnataka 15000 50995 240000 - - 100000 1000 34744 100000 Kerala 2985 173000 448279 750 - - - 140975 460208 Maharashtra 557 - - 715 - - 243-340494 Madhya Pradesh 392 8859 182272 100-70685 - 16457 70686 Manipur 239-8187 - - 2927 220-3127 Mizoram - - - 118 - - - - 0 Nagaland 1100 - - - - - 458-0 Orissa 2423 29000 480000 - - 200000-19880 742447 Punjab - - - - - - - - 1450 Rajasthan 300 2237 10239 50 1803 5459-1826 5459 Sikkim - - - - - - - - - Tamil Nadu 4000 998115 1948412-63322 555744-80000 555744 Tripura 450-12000 120-1000 90-1000 Uttar Pradesh 14210-119143 - - 100000 - - 100000 Uttrakhand 60 - - 40 - - 30 - - West Bengal 2968 50000 640000-10000 160000 3500-160000 India 54264 1465741 4987350 5807 108573 1981801 6886 345941 3320091 Note: * saving-cum-relief (Cumulative Number of Fishermen); **Cumulative number of Fishermen covered un Accident Insurance for Active Fishermen. Source: Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 453, dated on 04.08.2009 taken from http://www.indiastat.com It is also observed that in some of the states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, the number of insurance beneficiaries has been more than 2 lakh during the 2002-24 Contingent social security schemes for unorganised workers in India Jain Varinder 2010