Here are the key takeaways from the analysis of the CPGRAMS and Jansunwai grievance process in Uttar Pradesh:

• The “RTI” Redirection Trap: A major loophole exists where grievances are closed under Government Order (No. 1/2020/129). If a grievance asks for reasons or clarifications, the CMO classifies it as an RTI matter, which is technically prohibited on the grievance portal, leading to immediate “arbitrary” closure.
• Anonymity as a Shield: By labeling the disposal of grievances as a “joint” effort by personnel, the CMO avoids naming specific officials responsible for closing cases. This prevents individual accountability for poor or dismissive decision-making.
• Decentralization of Responsibility: Even though the portal is “centralized,” the CMO often distances itself from substantive issues (like the National Health Mission vacancies) by claiming the work is not “transacted” in their office, effectively acting as a courier rather than a monitor.
• Statistical Disposal vs. Actual Redress: There is a growing trend of “technical disposal,” where cases are marked closed on the dashboard to maintain high performance metrics without providing any actual relief or a reasoned response to the citizen.
• Intervention of the Information Commission: The fact that the State Information Commission must force the CMO to provide point-wise information (as seen in the 2025 hearings) suggests that the primary grievance system is currently failing to function transparently without legal pressure.

The Illusion of Redress: Deciphering the “Arbitrary” Closure of Public Grievances in Uttar Pradesh

In an era of digital governance, the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) and the state’s Jansunwai (IGRS) portal are marketed as the ultimate bridges between the citizen and the state. These platforms promise a 24×7 gateway to the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO), ensuring that no cry for help goes unheard.

However, recent disclosures under the Right to Information (RTI) Act have revealed a troubling pattern: a bureaucratic “loop” where grievances are closed not with solutions, but with technicalities. For many citizens in Uttar Pradesh, the portal has shifted from a tool of empowerment to a digital dead-end, leading to allegations of “Jungle Raj” in administrative accountability.

---

The Anatomy of a Rejection: The “RTI” Technicality

The core of the frustration lies in how grievances are categorized and subsequently dismissed. A frequent remark seen by applicants is: “प्रकरण का सम्बन्ध पोर्टल से नहीं है” (The matter is not related to the portal).

According to the CMO’s response, this often triggers under Government Order No. 1/2020/129/thirty-four-Lo0Shi0-05/2020-05, dated February 17, 2020. This order specifies that matters related to the Right to Information cannot be processed as “grievances” on the Jansunwai portal.

While this sounds like a logical administrative separation, it creates a “Catch-22” for the citizen:

• If a citizen asks why a previous grievance was closed, the system labels it an RTI query.
• Once labeled an RTI query, the grievance portal rejects it, directing the user to a separate RTI filing process.
• The result is a closed case file on the dashboard, improving the department’s “disposal rate” statistics without actually solving the citizen’s original problem.

---

Collective Responsibility or Avoidance of Accountability?

When citizens attempt to identify the specific official responsible for closing a case “arbitrarily,” they are met with a wall of anonymity. The CMO’s standard response is that the forwarding and disposal of online references are done “jointly online by the personnel posted in the section.”

By citing “joint disposal,” the administration effectively shields individual officers from accountability. If everyone is responsible, then no one is. Even though Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary) is designated as the Nodal Officer for references from the Government of India, the granular decision-making remains shrouded in the phrase “as per the arrangement.

This lack of transparency contradicts the principle of the “Right to Reason,” which holds that any administrative order affecting a citizen must be backed by a clear, logical explanation provided by a specific authority.

---

The Case of the National Health Mission (NHM)

The systemic failure is most evident in high-stakes issues like the National Health Mission (NHM) recruitment. Despite directions from the Central Government and the Allahabad High Court to consider the representations of aggrieved candidates regarding waiting lists, the CMO often distances itself.

The official stance—“The work of National Health Mission is not transacted in the Chief Minister’s Office”—highlights a significant gap in the “Centralised” nature of the portal. If the CMO, which serves as the apex monitoring body, merely acts as a post office to forward mail and then washes its hands of the outcome, the “monitoring” aspect of CPGRAMS/IGRS is effectively neutralized.

Department	Role in Grievance Redressal	Common Reason for Closure
CMO (Public Grievance Sec-3)	Nodal monitoring & forwarding	“Matter not related to portal” (RTI technicality)
Department of Health / NHM	Execution & substantive redressal	“Policy decision” or “Sub-judice”
Jansunwai Portal	Digital interface	“Disposed” once forwarded to another dept.

---

Is it “Jungle Raj” or Bureaucratic Inertia?

The term “Jungle Raj” is often used by frustrated citizens to describe a state of lawlessness. In the context of public grievances, it refers to a perceived administrative lawlessness—where rules are used as weapons to deny service rather than tools to provide it.

When the State Information Commission has to intervene to force the CMO to provide point-wise information, it indicates a breakdown in the primary redressal layer. The fact that the CMO asks to be “exempted from appearing” before the Commission after providing a standard, boilerplate response suggests a desire to minimize scrutiny rather than maximize service.

---

Moving Forward: Restoring Faith in the Portal

For the Jansunwai and CPGRAMS portals to be truly effective, the following reforms are essential:

1. Individual Accountability: Every grievance closure must carry the digital signature of the specific officer who approved the remark.
2. Substantive over Procedural Closure: A grievance should only be marked “closed” when the underlying issue is addressed, not merely when a letter is forwarded.
3. Mandatory Feedback Loop: If a citizen marks a resolution as “unsatisfactory,” the system should automatically escalate the matter to a higher authority (like the Nodal Officer) for a mandatory manual review.

The digital portal was designed to eliminate the need for citizens to run from pillar to post. If the portal itself becomes the “pillar” that keeps pushing the citizen to the next “post,” the essence of good governance is lost.

Here are the key takeaways from the analysis of the CPGRAMS and Jansunwai grievance process in Uttar Pradesh:

• The “RTI” Redirection Trap: A major loophole exists where grievances are closed under Government Order (No. 1/2020/129). If a grievance asks for reasons or clarifications, the CMO classifies it as an RTI matter, which is technically prohibited on the grievance portal, leading to immediate “arbitrary” closure.
• Anonymity as a Shield: By labeling the disposal of grievances as a “joint” effort by personnel, the CMO avoids naming specific officials responsible for closing cases. This prevents individual accountability for poor or dismissive decision-making.
• Decentralization of Responsibility: Even though the portal is “centralized,” the CMO often distances itself from substantive issues (like the National Health Mission vacancies) by claiming the work is not “transacted” in their office, effectively acting as a courier rather than a monitor.
• Statistical Disposal vs. Actual Redress: There is a growing trend of “technical disposal,” where cases are marked closed on the dashboard to maintain high performance metrics without providing any actual relief or a reasoned response to the citizen.
• Intervention of the Information Commission: The fact that the State Information Commission must force the CMO to provide point-wise information (as seen in the 2025 hearings) suggests that the primary grievance system is currently failing to function transparently without legal pressure.

Finding the contact details of public authorities in Uttar Pradesh requires navigating both the Central (CPGRAMS) and State (Jansunwai/IGRS) grievance frameworks. Below are the key links and contact details for the primary authorities mentioned in your request.

1. Key Web Links for Grievance & RTI

Portal Name	Purpose	Website Link
CPGRAMS (Central)	Lodge grievances with Central Government	pgportal.gov.in
Jansunwai IGRS (UP)	Lodge grievances with UP State Government	jansunwai.up.nic.in
RTI Online (UP)	File RTI applications/appeals to UP Depts	rtionline.up.gov.in
UP Shasnadesh	View Government Orders (Rules/Laws)	shasnadesh.up.gov.in

---

2. Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) – Public Grievance Section

For issues specifically related to the “arbitrary” closure of grievances on the Jansunwai portal:

• Nodal Officer (State): Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary)
• Address: Room No. 321, U.P. Secretariat, Lok Bhawan, Lucknow – 226001.
• Technical Support Email: jansunwai-up@gov.in (Only for technical portal issues, not for filing grievances).
• CM Office Helpline: +91 522 222 6347

---

3. National Health Mission (NHM) Uttar Pradesh

Since the CMO has stated that NHM work is handled by the Medical and Health Department, you should direct your specific queries regarding the “Waiting List” and “Vacancies” here:

• Public Authority: National Health Mission, Uttar Pradesh (SPMU)
• NHM Toll-Free Helpline: 1800-180-1900
• RTI Contact: Public Information Officer, Medical and Health Department, UP Secretariat, Lucknow.
• Official NHM UP Site: upnrhm.gov.in

---

4. Application ID & Tracking Details

• Grievance Registration Number: Usually starts with GOVUP/E/2024/… (for state) or PMOPG/E/2024/… (for central).
• How to Track:
  1. Go to the Jansunwai Track Status page.
  2. Enter your Complaint Number and Mobile Number.
  3. Enter the OTP to view the detailed progress and the specific remarks (e.g., the “RTI technicality” remark you received).

---

5. Important Email Contacts for Support

Department	Email Address
CPGRAMS Helpdesk	cpgrams-darpg@nic[dot]in
UP RTI Support	rtisupport-up@gov[dot]in
CMO Public Grievance	jansunwai-up@gov[dot]in

Note: Do not send grievance letters directly via email, as they are often ignored. Always use the portal to generate a Unique Registration Number, which is legally valid for follow-up and appeals.

Would you like me to help you draft a specific RTI application addressed to the Medical and Health Department to demand the NHM waiting list reasons?