Indradev Yadav submitted a Second Appeal under the Right to Information (RTI) Act against the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the public authority, Nagar Nigam Prayagraj. This action was taken as a result of the misleading information provided to him by the PIO, which not only caused confusion but also impeded his ability to obtain the necessary details regarding municipal services.
Indradev firmly believes that transparency is essential for effective governance, and he is determined to uphold his rights by seeking clarity through the appeals process.
He hopes that this appeal will pave the way for better accountability within the municipal authority, ensuring that citizens receive accurate and truthful information in the future.

Uttar Pradesh Information Commission: An RTI Appeal for Comprehensive Information

Case Reference: Welcome : UPICR20240008831

An ongoing Right to Information (RTI) appeal filed by Mr. Indradev Yadav with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission is currently underway, drawing significant attention to the vital role of transparency in public service.
The RTI appeal highlights a plea for full details about the appointment of a public employee, emphasising the need for accountability in governmental processes.
This appeal not only seeks information related to the appointment’s criteria and procedures but also aims to uncover any potential irregularities that might have occurred.
The case, set for a further hearing, underscores the importance of comprehensive responses from Public Information Officers (PIOs), who are entrusted with the responsibility of providing accurate and timely information to the public, thus fostering a culture of trust and openness in the administration.
The outcome of this appeal could potentially serve as a precedent for future cases and amplify awareness regarding the right to information as a tool for civic engagement and empowerment.

---

RTI Case Details at a Glance

• Appellant: Indradev Yadav
• Mobile Number: 9118208936
• Email: yadavindramzp9118@gmail.com
• Address: Village & Post Chilh, Mirzapur
• Registration Number: A-20241001256
• File Number: S10/A/1469/2024
• Diary Number: D-291220240006

Public Information Officer Details in RTI Case

• PIO: PIO Nagar Nigam
• Address: Public Information Officer Office – Prayagraj Nagar Nigam, Pin Code: 211001

Current Status of the Appeal

• Hearing Date: 27/12/2024
• Hearing Status: For further hearing.
• Hearing Room: S-10

---

The Information Sought under RTI

Mr. Indradev Yadav filed an RTI application seeking the following specific details about Mr. Umesh Kumar, son of the late Lal Bahadur, an employee of the Prayagraj Municipal Corporation: the nature of his employment, the duration of his service, any promotions or recognitions he may have received during his tenure, and the circumstances surrounding his father’s contributions to the community.
Additionally, Mr. Yadav requested any relevant documents that reflect Mr. Umesh Kumar’s role within the corporation. He also sought information on the municipal policies that pertain to employee records and how such information can be accessed for transparency and accountability in government operations.

1. Date of Appointment: The date of Mr. Umesh Kumar’s appointment in the district of Prayagraj.
2. First Posting Details: Information about Mr. Umesh Kumar’s first posting.
3. Current Posting Details: The current posting details of Mr. Umesh Kumar.
4. Verifying Official: The name and designation of the public official who verified the records submitted by Mr. Umesh Kumar during his appointment process as part of the RTI appeal.

Response from the Public Information Officer

In a letter dated 26th December 2024 (Reference: D-35/7/Health Dept./24), the Assistant Public Information Officer/City Health Officer of Prayagraj Nagar Nigam provided a comprehensive response addressing several important health-related queries raised by the citizens.

This detailed communication highlighted the various initiatives undertaken by the department to improve public health services in the city, outlining strategies for disease prevention, sanitation upgrades, and vaccination drives that aim to mitigate health risks and enhance the overall well-being of the community.
Additionally, the Officer emphasised the importance of community participation in these health initiatives, encouraging residents to engage actively in awareness programs and utilise the resources available to them for better health outcomes.
The letter also detailed specific programs that have seen significant success, including educational campaigns focused on nutrition and hygiene, workshops designed to foster collaboration between healthcare professionals and the public, and outreach efforts that ensure even the most vulnerable populations are informed about available health services.
By fostering a spirit of cooperation among citizens and health officials, the Officer aims to build a healthier and more resilient community that prioritises the well-being of all its members.

The PIO stated that the selection committee appointed Mr. Umesh Kumar Singh as a temporary sanitation worker based on their recommendation dated 28th July 2008. They issued the reference through office order number D-494/Adhi./2007 dated 31st July 2008. Reportedly, they enclosed a copy of the relevant order with the response.

Appellant’s Dissatisfaction and Grounds for Second Appeal

Despite the PIO’s response, Mr. Yadav has contested that the information provided is incomplete and has thus pursued a second appeal. His key points of contention are: he believes that critical details were omitted that could significantly impact his understanding of the case, particularly in relation to the decisions made by the authorities involved.
Additionally, he argues that the PIO did not adequately address some of his specific queries, leading to confusion and frustration on his part.
Mr. Yadav insists that transparency and accountability are crucial in this matter, and he is determined to ensure that all relevant information is disclosed to him, which he believes is his right as a citizen.
He is prepared to take further steps, including legal action, to advocate for his right to information, as he feels strongly about the importance of accessing complete and satisfactory responses in his appeal.

• Missing First Posting Details: The response did not include the specifics of Mr. Umesh Kumar’s first posting, as requested in point 2 of the RTI application.
• Outdated Current Posting Information: The PIO provided the promotion list dated 24th September 2024. The appellant argues that this does not constitute the current posting details as sought in point 3 of the RTI appeal.
• No Information on Verifying Official: The documents supplied (appointment letter and promotion list) are missing the name of the official. Additionally, they do not include the designation of the official who verified Mr. Kumar’s records during his appointment, as requested in point 4.

In his submission to the presiding officer of hearing room S-10, Mr. Yadav has requested action. He asked that the PIO give full information for all raised points. The information must be correct and pertain to his original RTI application.

The court will handle these points of contention at the further hearing listed for December 27, 2024.

Indradev Yadav submitted second appeal against PIO Nagar Nigam Prayagraj

Indradev Yadav seeks information from Municipal Corporation Prayagraj

Appeal submitted against arbitrary denial of information by PIO Nagar Nigam Prayagraj