For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/remarking.php#8

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Act provides job Guarantee to rural adult. This scheme ensures right to work and by ensuring right to work it helps in the upliftment of life of rural people. Some main provision and impotent information about this scheme can be stated under following heads : Launching of Scheme: - Lunching by Govt. of India in all Panchayats of District Mahendergrsh and Sirsa on 2nd February 2006 and extended in two more district namely Ambala and Mevat on 1st April 2007. Remaining districts of state have been covered under the scheme w.e.f. 1st April 2008. This Act is introduced by Rahuwansh Prasad the then Minister of Rural Development. Objectives: Betterment of livelihood security to the households in rural areas of the state. Creation of assets for development of rural areas. Provision: Minimum 100 days of wage employment in a financial year to every household volunteer to do unskilled manual work. • minimum wages of Rs 331 per man day notified by the Ministry of Rural Development Govt. of India Ist April 2022 • Men and women will be pried equal wage. • 60:40 wage and material Ratio to be maintain at District level. Cost Sharing: 90:10 ratio and state government of total expenditure. Thus, this schemes provision tries to be focused on ensuring employment Guarantee and give compensation if not possible to provide employment. Thus, right to work is secured and life of rural people can be improved.

The Act is also a significant vehicle for strengthening decentralization and deepening processes of democracy by giving a pivotal role to local governance bodies, i.e the panchayati raj institutions. Bhatt and Dreze (2006) conducted a study on "Employment Guarantee in Jharkhand: Ground Realities". It was found that there was very little awareness of basic features of the Act and also job card. Even among concerned Govt. officials there was little awareness about the basic features of the Act. Although registering applications and issuing job cards were the responsibility of Gram Panchayat yet there was no Gram panchayats. Panchayat election had not been held since 1978. This institutional gap was a major stumbling block in the implementation of NREGA. A number of studies undertaken by Bhatta and Dreze (2006a), Ranware et al (2015), Jean and Khera (2009), Babu and Rao (2010), Ahmed and Sarkar (2014), Himanshu et al (2015), Siwan Anderson et al (2015), Panda (2015), Singh and Singh (2013) are reviewed in different aspects such as role of panchayat, status and impact of MGNREGS for the rural people, funds allocation, social audits etc. From the review it was found that Rajasthan was the first major state to completely embrace the NREGS. Branding it the "best-performer among all States" for the year 2006-07, Dreze and Oldiges (2008) points out that this was unsurprising because "..... employment guarantee has been a lively political issue in Rajasthan for quite a few years, and the State also had a high level of preparedness for the Act, having organized Massive public works programmes almost every year in living memory" (Himanshu et al; 2015). The researcher found gaps among many studies which were not focused on case studies, FGDs for in-depth analysis. Kumar Vijay S. (2011), in his article on "Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: A Review" opines that despite decades of planned development and poverty eradication programmes at the national and state levels, poverty continues to persist in India. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) aims at enhancing the livelihood security of people in rural areas by guaranteeing hundred days of wage employment in a financial year to a rural household who volunteer to do unskilled manual work. Rudra Prasad Roy (2014), According to a recent Indian Government committee constituted to estimate poverty, nearly 38% of India’s population is poor. More than 75% of poor people reside in villages. Rural poverty is largely a result of low productivity and unemployment. In order to alleviate rural poverty by generating employment and creation of sustainable assets in Rural India, Government of India brought in the flagship programme called Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), 2005. However, Social security programmes are not free from flaws. So is the case with MGNREGA. This article highlights the issues and challenges being faced by Government while implementing the world’s largest employment generating programme and the issues among the people covered under the scheme. As per the author's knowledge, latest reviews from 2015  are not available on implementation of the MGNREGA. 

This study was based on both primary and secondary sources of data. It followed the mixed approach of both qualitative and quantitative. The secondary sources of data were collected from the Planning Commission reports, Ministry of Rural Development reports, State Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department reports etc. interview schedule, interview guide, guideline for case studies and FGI)s were used for collecting data from primary sources case studies were selected as per the different criteria which focused on status of implementation of scheme, involvement gram panchayat, participation for wages etc. Four FGDs were conducted with beneficiaries of MGNREGA in both the villages. Interviews have been conducted with beneficiaries of MGNREGA, Government officials, Panchayat members. Purposive sampling method was used for selection of Ratanpur and Rampur Village from two different Panchayats due to the highly concentration of Below Poverty Line (BPL) families and implementation of MGNREGA.

Socio-economic Profile of the Beneficiaries

In the below (Table 1) data shows that highest number of persons 12 (38.8%) out of 121 were working under MGNREGA in the age-group of 30-40 years followed by 26.4 percentage in the age group of 40-50 years and 14 percentage in the age group of 50-60 years. It was found that 11 persons were demanding to work under MGNREGA in the age of 60-70 years although they were not able to work due to their poor health condition but for livelihood they forced to do work in their own villages. Only 11 percent were working in the age group of 20-30 years under MGNREGA because they were going to nearby cities for getting more wages.

Table–1  : Profile of the Respondents

	Background Characteristics	Ratanpur	Rampur	Total (N=121)
Age	20-30 years 30-40 years 40-50 years 50-60 years 60-70 years	5 (11.9) 16 (38.1) 10 (23.8) 6 (14.3) 5 (11.9)	9 (11.4) 31 (39.2) 22 (27.8) 11 (13.9) 6 (7.5)	14 (11.5) 47 (38.8) 32 (26.4) 17 (14.0) 11 (9.0)
Caste	Schedule Caste Other Back ward castes other	24 (57.1) 17(40.5) 1 (2.4)	40. (50.6) 37 (46.8) 2 (2.5)	64 (52.9) 54 (44.6) 3 (2.4)
Genders wise	Male Female	36 (85.7) 6 (14.3)	65 (82.3) 14 (17.7)	101( 83.5) 20 (16.5)
Religion	Hindu Muslim	40 (95.2) 2 (4.7)	69 (87.3) 10 (12.6)	109 (90.1) 12 (9.9)
Family Type	Nuclear  Joint	21 (50) 21 (50)	49 (62.0) 30 (38.0)	69 (57.0) 50 (41.3)
Education	Illiterate Literate Up to Elementary Up to Sr. Secondary	34 (80.9) 1 (2.3) 5 (11.9) 2 (4.7)	74 (93.7) 2 (2.5) 2 (2.5) 1 (1.3)	108 (89.2) 3 (2.5) 7 (5.8) 3 (2.5)
Employment	Labourer Self Employed Government Pension	33 (78.5) 5 (11.9) 4 (9.5)	68 (86.9) 5 (6.3) 6 (7.5)	101 (83.5) 10 (8.2) 10 (8.2)
Income of Families	Less than 4000/- 4000-6000/- 6000-8000/- Above 8000/-	17 (40.5) 12 (28.6) 10 (8.3) 3 (2.5)	22 (27.8) 33 (26.4) 20 (16.5) 5 (4.1)	39 (32.2) 44 (36.4) 30 (24.8) 8 (6.6)

Among 121 beneficiaries 64 (52.9%) beneficiaries were coming under scheduled castes followed by other Back castes i.e. 54 (44.6%) and only three family belongs to general caste. Not a single tribal family was available in these villages. all the BPL families were getting BPL ration cards from their respective Panchayat. It was found that 16.5 percent families were single/ Female headed households. Either they were widows or separated. Ninety Percent of Families out of 121 were from Hindu religion and rest other were Muslims. Data shows that 62 percent household were single family in Rampur village where as in Ratanpur, it was equal number in case of nuclear and joint families. The educational status is very poor in this village. Even most of the females were not aware about their signature. Data reveals that 89.2 percent were illiterate out of 121 families in both the villages. In Rampur village 86 percent are daily wage labourer which is eight percent higher than Ratanpur village. They opened that all times in a year work is not available in villages and even in nearby villages. Due to lack of education they were not able to work in other sectors. MGNREGA was not regular also, they have to search for work otherwise migrate to other place for earning money. It reveals that most of the family income of the beneficiaries is between Rs. 4000–6000/ per month i.e. 44 (36.4%) Followed by 32.4  percent earned less than Rs. 4000 ten families (8.2%) were only dependent on Government schemes such as old age and widow pension Scheme. Around 70 percent of households were living in pucca house in Ratanpur whereas Rampur had this facility for 62.5 percent families/ households. Ratanpur village had more than half of the houses (56.8%) with separate kitchen which was thrice more than Rampur (20.5%). Data shows that 60.2 percent had facility of electricity in Rampur and in Ratanpur, it was 71.5 percent. Most of the households (81.8%) had drinking water facility in their own premises these sources were piped water, tube well and rain water harvesting.

One case studies were selected in context of MGNREGA and their benefits, uses of money, problems faced and their suggestions for strengthening of this scheme.

Case Study — 1

Identification: Salta Kumari, a widow belongs to General Caste of Hindu religion. She was 75 year: old. She received ration card from the panchayat on 12 May, 2010. She was the poorest person of the, Rampur village living in ward no. 3 as per the information provided by PDS Dealer and panchayat members. MGNREGA job card was issued to her. She was illiterate. She was not able to work due to weak health condition and old age.

Poorest family- This family was the neediest one but her name had not been included in the category of BPL Census of 1997 because her son was staying with her and he was earning to take care of the family. She was excluded the benefits of government schemes and programmes since many years though her condition was very pathetic.

Death of single son- Her son died in the last ten years when he was 20 scars old. After death his wife deserted this old lady to left the house. After that she was alone. Her name was included as per criteria evolved in 2002 BPI Census. The village panchayat agreed for her inclusion in BPL category. Her name was included in the list through the help of panchayat unanimously.

Children- She had a married daughter. Her grandson and grand daughter were staying with her. Both were in the age group of 21 and 17 years respectively. Son was a drop out of the Class VIII and grand daughter was still continuing her study in the Class X in the Government school. Due to poor economic condition of her daughter and large size family she had sent her children to stay with her.

Observation- It was observed that she was quite weak sitting outside of her room. She used stick to walk from one place to another. Her grand daughter was cleaning the house and grandson had gone for searching a job.

Occupation and income- Her family income was between Rs 2000/- to 2500/- per month depending upon the availability of work including pension of Rs 750/- per month. Earlier she was getting Rs 500/- per month but after entering the age of 75 she was getting the increases amount of Rs 750/.

Benefits-  Family received the benefits of Old age pension, PDS MGNREGA. She appreciated the PDS Dealer for his help in this process of getting pension. She also mentioned that Dealer provided her rations in the door step.

Housing condition- The housing condition was not good. It was kutcha house with kutcha floor. There was no electricity facility because the electric pole was at a long distance from her house. Water facility was available within her premises. She had no asset like chair, bed, stitching machine, gas, pressure cooker etc. Mobile phone was available due to the financial support under the government scheme. Chullah was the only source of cooking. Separate kitchen was unthinkable for her. In the raining season they were confronting problem of cooking at a suitable place for cooking due to leakage of raining water. Firewood was collected from her land. She owned ten bigah of agricultural and cultivable land. Due to her daily straggle for searching of work by her grandson she had given this land for cultivation under share cropping system. Output of the crops was a source of her feeding also overcoming problem of starvation. She had a goat also to get milk for making tea. She diet not buy milk from open market.

Cooking- Her grand daughter was helping her in her daily chores. She goes to school and cooked for all three members.

MGNREGA- Due to MGNREGA card received during the year 2012 her grandson was working. He had completed 80 days of work. After this he had got found some work at construction on higher sites. Payment of wages was of Rs 250/ per day in outside work which is higher than MGNREGA wages. He left MGNREGA work and started working at construction site for earning more money. They used the money for livelihood and purchasing of stationeries for her education of granddaughter.

Problems/ Difficulties- She did not take benefit of Indira Awaas Yojana after many requests to panchayat. She also mentioned that school had given only hooks to her granddaughter. She had to spend money to purchase school uniform. note books, stationary which were costly items. Since she was from General caste, teacher told her that she would not get scholarship of benefits from the school. She was dissatisfied with this response. However SCs and OBCs castes were getting the scholarship though their family conditions were She was from upper caste but her condition was  pathetic.

Benefit derived front the schemes- She got the benefits of wheat; sugar and kerosene oil from PDS on very low price. It had helped her to ensure her survive. Otherwise she would have been in wretched condition. She 'opined “Gujara chalta hai nahi to kahan se lati itna paisa or unco khilali". Due to her pitiable health condition most of the times PDS Dealer helped her to supply her rations at her doorstep. Sometimes her grandson collected it front the shop. Due to timely benefits of wheat every month they were eating food daily. It was sufficient for her family. The quality of rations was good. She said " upar wala dia to bahut hai" (God is giving this quantity I sin happy). She was worried about maintenance on her house. She hoped that her grand daughter and son will manage in the kutcha house. She expected electricity connection for survival of her grand children also. She had never attended panchayat meeting. She was aware about JAY and electricity connection schemes for BPL. Family did not receive seeds from Panchayat to grow crops. She used the pension amount for household chores, purchase clothes and education of daughter. She was happy for running of government schemes as also financial help so that poor cold lead life with respect.

Conclusion- She was worried about her education and care of granddaughter after her death. She also wanted to communicate caste does not matter for getting benefits of government but it depend upon the socio-economic condition of family. So strict identification of beneficiaries needs to be focused by the panchayat, school teachers etc.

Case Study–2

Indentification- Azhar was from OBC, Muslim religion. He received the ration card on 20^th April 2012 from Panchayat Office. He residence in ward No. 2. He had MGNREGA job card. His wife was worked in MGNREGA.

Children : She had three sons and one daughter. The Eldest daughter was 15 years old followed by second, third and fourth were in the age of twelve, nine and six years. He was not aware about the education of his children. Only he mentioned that they were going to the Government School. He quoted "Bacho padhai Mujhe nahi maloom hai.”

Disabled by accident- He was disabled since last five years due to road accident. His one leg has fractured and he was not able to walk properly. He had fallen from Auto when he was riding. After that he was taking rest at home. His family condition had gone down due to unexpected accident. He had spent lot of money for his treatment. But it was found that lack of positive result in context of his condition.

Housing conditions- They had only one semi-pucca room. Kitchen was also not available. Toilet and bathroom were not there. Everybody had gone for open defecation. But it was difficult for him to go outside because of feeling of pain in the legs. Electricity connection was available in the name of elder brother. It was not benefitted from any government scheme. Water tank was there for storage of water. Drinking water facility was available. In the discussion he said never boil or purified the water. They had only three bigah of agricultural land and a goat. Chullah was the main source of cooking. Family had no asset like television, radio, chair, bed, machine, gas cylinder. As per the discussion with his wife it was mentioned that two small children were going to Madrasa.

Government school- Only text books were provided in the Government School. The quality of mid day meal was not good. Children carried their lunch box from home. Scholarships, uniform were not provided in the government school for the poor.

Source of income and use of money- His wife was the main source of income. She worked as a maid servant and earned Rs 1000/- per month to make roti be one family in their village.

MGNREGA- She hail completed 100 days of work under M6NR EGA but she got only Rs 7000/- and it was calculated @ No 60 to Rs 80/- per day. She did not aware the reason for low amount has taken per day. She used that money to purchase some household assets and in the household management. She purchased a mobile for emergency purpose. He opined that minimum Rs 4000/- was essential for food, tea etc per month. Through the income from MGNREGA her individual and family status improved. She used the money in purchasing the artificial designing ornaments, created assets also. She developed her confidence, and improved sharing. Attitude in groups also and mobility to Ladnun city improved.

Education of children- His wife also worked as a labourer in the agricultural and of rich families in the village. She was doing hard work for household chores and education of children. As per the discussion with his wife, she told the eldest daughter was studying in Class VIII and second child was in Class VI. They were interested to complete the Class X. But their continuation of higher studies will depend upon their family situation.

Panchayat Meetings and awareness- He never attended the meeting at panchayat. Family members were not aware about any scheme except PDS provided the rations and Indira Awaas Yojna (IAY), MGNREGA. Benefits from PDS: He received 25 kg wheat and three kg of sugar @half kg per head, three Litre Kerosene oil from PDS shop every month. But sugar was not provided timely. The quality was good but the quantity was not sufficient for them. Each person ate rod of @12 kg of wheat flour every month. Three times they consumed roti per day. Tea was the main habit of all. Therefore sugar, tea and milk were very much essential to buy and Rs 1000/-had spent in this way. They also bought 70 kg of Bajra from open market and per quintal its cost was Rs 1500/-.

He opined that "Fulda io bahut hai, sasta mile rations our bobcat paisa bachta hai uske baje se" means clue to BPL category he got help from Government. The cost of rations was in very low prices, so it saved money also. This money utilized in other way to manage the household. If they will buy wheat from market they per quintal they had to pay Rs 2000/- and for 25kg it was Rs 500/-. But they were getting 25 kg of wheat only in Rs 25/- @ one rupee per kg. It saved money, time. He also got the opportunity to take the wheat flour roti. Otherwise they could have to take only Bajra roti. His food habits changed in this way.

 

1. Rehana, A., & Sarkar, S. (December). MONR.EGA and social protection: An analysis of efficiency, equity and accountability in Northern Eastern states. Journal of Economic and Social Development. 10 (2) 81-94, 2. Babu, V. A. (20 10). Impact of MGNREGS on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe's : Studies conducted in Eight State, Hyderabad: NIRD. 3. Bella, V.A. & Jean, D. (2006). Employment guarantee in Jharkhand: Ground realities. Economic and political weekly, 41(29), 3198-3202. 4. Dee, M. (2011) NREGS and Child Well Being. Mumbai: Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research. 5. Dreze. J.A. (2008). Commendable Act. 24 (14). Frontline. 6. Giri Institute of Development Studies. Impact Assessment of National Rural(2009) Impact Guarantee Scheme in Uttar Pradesh (Sonbhadra District). Department of Rural Development. Government of Uttar Pradesh. 7. Ghosh, J. (2009). Equity and inclusion through public expenditure: The potential of the NREGS. Paper for international conference. New Delhi, India. 8. Himanshu, A. M. (2015). NREGS in Rajasthan, Rationed Funds and their allocation across villages. Economic and Political Weekly, 50(6) 52-60. 9. Jaswal, A. & Mistry, P. (2007). Will NREGA Ensure Security Against Hunger? A Study– Stuntnaly Report. Ahmedabad: DISHA. 10. Krushna, R. U. D. (2015). MGNREGA Works and their impacts. A study of Maharashtra. Economic cod Political Weekly, 50(13), 53-61. 11. Mehta, Y. A. (2015). Spectators or Participants? Effects of Social Audits in Amara Pradesh. Economic and Political 50(7), 66-71. 12. Panda, B. (2015). National rural employment guarantee scheme, development practice at the crossroads. Economic and Political Weekly, 50(23), 126-131. 13. Shah, M. (2007). Employment guarantee, civil society and Indian democracy. Economic and Po Weekly; 42(45), 43-51. 14. Siwan, A. P. .F. (2015). One kind of Democracy, implementing NIGNREGS. Economic and .Political Weekly, 50(26&27) 44-48. 15. Singh; U. (2016). Roadway to accomplish sustainable de-velopment of rural youth. Kurukshetra. A ‘Journal of Rural Development, 64(10), pages 56. 16. Tomba, S. S. (2013). Rural Poverty Alleviation Programmes: A Study of MGNREGA in Manipur. Journal of People and Society in Local culture, 4(1). 129-144. 16. Indian Journal of Sustainable Development Volume–2 Issue 2, 2016