Understanding grievance redressal in forest department cases starts with a simple question: who actually reviews the complaint? In Gorakhpur, the home district of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, that question has taken on real weight. A daily wage worker, Satyendra Singh, says officials expelled him without cause after years of loyal service. Meanwhile, an officer allegedly held a Ranger’s post illegally for over four years. Together, these two threads point to a troubling pattern within the department. Specifically, officials investigated a complaint filed directly against their own colleagues. As a result, the case exposes how easily grievance mechanisms can fail the very people they exist to protect. This article examines that failure in careful, close, honest detail, and it also asks what real accountability should actually look like instead.

🚨 Understanding Grievance Redressal in Forest Department: A Crisis of Accountability in CM Yogi’s Backyard

Understanding grievance redressal in forest department cases starts with one question: who actually reviews the complaint? The Forest Department in Gorakhpur is under sharp scrutiny. After all, Gorakhpur is the home district of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. A grievance filed with the Prime Minister’s Office exposes a severe lapse in accountability. Its reference number is PMOPG/E/2025/0009615.

At the center of the case, officials arbitrarily expelled a long-serving daily wage worker. In addition, a junior officer allegedly held a Ranger’s post through institutional corruption.

This is not just a personnel dispute. Instead, it raises a deeper concern about tyranny and the misuse of authority. Ultimately, it tests whether transparent governance and natural justice mean anything in practice.

---

🪵 The Arbitrary Action: A Daily Wager’s Plea for Justice

The complainant, Yogi M. P. Singh, has raised the case of Satyendra Singh S/O Mahendra Singh. Specifically, Singh worked as a daily wage worker (“Dainik Dakia”) in the Baki Range of Gorakhpur Division. According to the grievance, officials arbitrarily expelled him from his post. (Understanding Grievance Redressal in Forest Department)

Even so, Satyendra Singh sought redressal at the highest level. For instance, he personally met the Minister of the Department of Forest, Mr. Arun Kumar Saxena, during the Minister’s visit to Gorakhpur. In response, the Minister advised him to send a detailed representation. Singh then followed that advice. On January 17, 2025, he dispatched a representation by registered speed post, detailing his hardships.

Notably, the PMO grievance includes several supporting documents. These cover the postal tracking details, a salary payment description, and a letter from the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur, to the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO). They also include Singh’s account statements from 2018 to 2023 — in other words, proof of long service.

The complainant frames the core issue as arbitrariness and personal vindictiveness. Specifically, he points to the Range Officer of Baki Range. He notes that Uttar Pradesh is currently regularizing daily wage staff across Gorakhpur division. Yet, despite this, officials are overlooking Singh’s representation, he says, because of personal vendetta.

---

👑 The Authority Vacuum: An Illegally Posted Ranger

One allegation, however, turns this from a routine grievance into a systemic failure. According to the complaint, officials posted an unauthorized officer to a crucial administrative role. The grievance names Ranger Jagdamba Pathak in this regard. It says he has held the Baki Range post illegally for over four years. As a result, this tenure, the complainant argues, violates Uttar Pradesh’s transfer policy. Nevertheless, despite the violation, officials have taken no action against him. (Understanding Grievance Redressal in Forest Department)

Consequently, this sustained illegal posting is the root cause, the grievance argues, of the “arbitrariness and tyranny” the applicant faced. After all, when officials fill posts against the rules, the whole chain of command erodes. As a result, officers may then act as if they’re immune to accountability. In turn, that dynamic breeds the misuse of authority and institutional corruption.

---

⏳ The Response: An Empty Gesture and Case Closure (Understanding Grievance Redressal in Forest Department)

First, officials registered the grievance on January 21, 2025. Then, they closed it on February 7, 2025, with a terse Hindi-language reply. Specifically, the response came from the office of the Joint Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh. Furthermore, it relayed a report from the Regional Forest Officer, Baki.

Key Points of the Official Response (Understanding Grievance Redressal in Forest Department)

• Fact of employment: For example, the department confirms Satyendra Kumar Singh worked as a daily laborer, caring for tree plantations until March 2023. Additionally, it confirms it paid him for that work.
• The claim of self-separation: In particular, the department justified closing the case with one claim: Singh “automatically left the job after the said payment” and no longer works as a daily laborer.
• Justification for the Ranger: Because the government has not appointed a Regional Forest Officer (RFO), the response states, it therefore kept Jagdamba Pathak, a Sub-Regional Forest Officer, in charge of Baki Range as an “alternative arrangement” (vaikalpik vyavastha).

Immediately afterward, the complainant contested this closure.

---

💔 Dissatisfaction and a Call for Ministerial Intervention

In response, the complainant marked the grievance “Not Resolved.” Specifically, he noted that officials had “sent it to another department without resolution.” Moreover, his stated reason points to a major procedural flaw: (Understanding Grievance Redressal in Forest Department)

The Minister of the Department of Forest, Mr. Arun Kumar Saxena, visited Gorakhpur. There, the applicant met him and described his hardships. In response, the Minister advised the applicant to send a detailed representation to his office. Admittedly, this concerns the jurisdiction of the Divisional Forest Officer, Gorakhpur. But, even so, the Minister’s own office had to make the decision. So how can officials treat the representation as resolved if it never reaches the right office?

Overall, the complainant’s argument holds up. After all, he addressed the representation to the Minister for a decision. Instead, officials relegated the investigation to the very office the complaint targets — the DFO and the Ranger. Then, they closed the case based on that office’s own report. As a result, this failed due process and evaded accountability, the complainant argues. At minimum, an independent high-level authority should have reviewed the file. Furthermore, it should have weighed the allegations of illegal posting and personal vendetta. Finally, it should have ordered an impartial inquiry.

Meanwhile, officials gave Singh no real reason for his termination. Instead, their only explanation was that he “left on his own.” Consequently, this omission violates the principles of natural justice. Indeed, those principles demand that authorities explain administrative actions, especially against a long-serving employee. Therefore, the burden of proof rests with the department. In other words, it must show that the worker abandoned his job, not that officials unfairly expelled him — particularly given the alleged vindictiveness involved.

---

📢 The Demand: Rule of Law and Transparent Governance

Understanding grievance redressal in forest department cases, in the end, means understanding who bears the burden of proof. It also means knowing who actually reviews the file. In short, this case is a powerful call for restoring the rule of law. Specifically, it directly challenges the Divisional Forest Officer, Gorakhpur, to review the staff’s representation with transparency. (Understanding Grievance Redressal in Forest Department)

Overall, the case of Satyendra Singh and Ranger Jagdamba Pathak reflects a larger governance challenge. Notably, this is the Chief Minister’s home turf. Yet the system let an illegally posted officer allegedly misuse power. As a result, it let him arbitrarily end a daily laborer’s long career. Ultimately, that failure stains the administration’s commitment to good governance.

The grievance closes with a firm request. First, officials should act according to the law. Second, the person responsible for denying the applicant’s rights should face penal proceedings. Importantly, this is not just a plea for a job. Rather, it is a demand for administrative justice, where accountability comes first. So every action must hold up under the law, not personal whim. Therefore, the Chief Minister’s office should now step in. Specifically, it should correct this miscarriage of justice and restore faith in the Forest Department. the law, not personal whim. The Chief Minister’s office should now step in to correct this miscarriage of justice and restore faith in the Forest Department’s commitment to ethical and legal administration.rmation regarding the concerned Minister, Shri Arun Kumar Saxena, or the Chief Minister’s Secretariat to follow up on this governance issue?

Here are the official web links for the public authorities named in the case: (Understanding Grievance Redressal in Forest)

Central grievance mechanism

• CPGRAMS / PG Portal (Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System — where the PMO grievance was filed): pgportal.gov.in
• PMO Grievance Status Tracking: pgportal.gov.in/Status/Index
• PMO facilitation helpline: 011-23386447

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister’s Office

• CM Office, UP: upcmo.up.nic.in (this is the same link used in the original article)

UP Forest and Wildlife Department (the department at the center of the case, headed by Minister Arun Kumar Saxena)

• Official site: upforest.gov.in
• Contact details page: upforest.gov.in/StaticPages/ContactDetails.aspx

UP Labour Department (relevant since the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur, corresponded with the DFO in this case)

• Official site: uplabour.gov.in
• UP Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board (daily-wage worker registration/status): upbocw.in

Gorakhpur district administration

• District portal: gorakhpur.nic.in