Financial Inclusion Camp at Dorli Village
A financial inclusion camp is being held in a village of 220 households. The branch has two enrolment counters and can complete about 60 enrolments in the day. Five residents come to the help desk. Savita is 34, holds a Jan Dhan account, has no pension cover, and her husband is a migrant labourer. Ramesh is 52, a daily-wage mason with a savings account and no insurance. Anil is 17, a Class XII student with no account. Kamla is 68, a widow with a savings account who receives a state pension. Mohan is 41, a dairy farmer with a savings account, already covered under PMJJBY and paying the premium by auto-debit. The sarpanch wants everyone enrolled in 'all the schemes' today. The branch has had two failed auto-debit mandates in the past month because of insufficient balance, and one duplicate enrolment that had to be reversed last quarter.
1. For each of the five residents, state which of Atal Pension Yojana, PMSBY and PMJJBY they can enrol in today, and identify the one refusal that will be hardest to explain to the sarpanch.
Read the worked answer
Apply the age bands that govern each scheme: APY is open to those aged 18 to 40; PMSBY to those aged 18 to 70; PMJJBY to those aged 18 to 50. A person may hold PMSBY and PMJJBY simultaneously - they cover different events - but not two policies of the same scheme, and not two APY accounts.
- Savita, 34: eligible for all three. APY, PMSBY and PMJJBY can all be started today, subject to her savings account being KYC-compliant and having balance for the auto-debit.
- Ramesh, 52: PMSBY only. He is past 40 for APY and past 50 for PMJJBY.
- Anil, 17: none of the three. All require a minimum age of 18. What he can have today is a minor savings account (PMJDY permits accounts from age 10, operated by a guardian), which positions him for enrolment on his eighteenth birthday.
- Kamla, 68: PMSBY only. She is within the 70-year ceiling for PMSBY but past the APY and PMJJBY limits.
- Mohan, 41: APY and PMSBY are open to him; PMJJBY is already held, so he must not be enrolled again - only confirmed and his auto-debit checked.
Hardest refusal: Ramesh, and not because of the rules - because he is a 52-year-old wage earner with no cover who is visibly the person most in need of life and accident protection, and the answer is that he missed both cut-offs. The counter staff must say plainly that PMSBY is available and is the scheme built for exactly his situation, rather than mumbling about age limits.
2. Given a capacity of about 60 enrolments and the recent failed mandates and duplicate enrolment, recommend a priority order and two operational safeguards.
Read the worked answer
Priority order, on risk reduction per enrolment completed:
- Mohan (41) - APY first. He is inside the 18–40 window now and will not be for much longer; the cost of delay is permanent. PMSBY added as a low-cost rider. His existing auto-debit history means high completion probability.
- Savita (34) - APY plus PMSBY. She has the longest accumulation horizon among the five and no pension cover at all; her husband's migration makes the household income volatile, which strengthens the case rather than weakening it.
- Kamla (68) - PMSBY. Cheap, one-page, and she is close to the age ceiling; this is a closing window.
- Ramesh (52) - PMSBY. Insurance only, but the one product available to him.
- Anil (17) - minor account and a dated reminder. Lowest immediate risk, no scheme available until 18; log the follow-up rather than spend counter time.
Safeguard 1 - prove the debit will succeed before enrolling. Check the balance and recent transaction pattern, explain the debit date in the customer's own language, and stagger the debit dates across the month so that wage-earners are not all debited on the same day. A mandate that bounces creates a second problem: a lapsed policy and a customer who believes he is covered.
Safeguard 2 - one screening step against duplicates. Before each enrolment, query the customer's existing holdings by account number, not by name, and record the acknowledgement number on a camp register. The quarterly duplicate reversal was avoidable and is a compliance item, not an inconvenience.
3. Mohan says: "I will join APY at 40 instead of now - the pension is the same and I will pay for fewer years." Evaluate the reasoning.
Read the worked answer
The conclusion is wrong, and the error sits in the first clause.
What is true in what he says: the pension amount under APY is chosen by the subscriber within the permitted slabs, and it does not change because you join late. So "the pension is the same" is correct in the narrow sense that a ₹3,000 pension is a ₹3,000 pension whenever you start.
What is false: the contribution is set by the age of entry. The scheme is designed so that the same pension is funded by a smaller monthly contribution the earlier you join, because the accumulation period is longer. Joining at 40 for the same pension means a higher monthly contribution than joining at 34 - not a lower one. He has the direction of the trade-off exactly backwards: years of paying are fewer, but the price per year is higher, and the total is not in his favour.
Two further points against delay:
- The 40-year age limit is a hard cliff. Waiting until 40 leaves no margin for a rejected form, a KYC gap or a missed debit; a single month's delay closes the scheme permanently.
- Every year without cover is an uninsured year. If the purpose is protection for his family, deferral buys nothing at all during the deferral.
The counter argument to use is arithmetic plus a deadline: he is buying the same pension more cheaply now, and the door shuts at 40.