In Farrukhabad district, investigators uncovered a startling case that has sent shockwaves across Uttar Pradesh’s health administration. The name Arpit Singh—complete with matching date of birth and father’s name—appeared on government records across six separate districts. For nine years, this phantom employee was listed as an X-ray technician, collecting salaries month after month. Yet when cross-verified with the state’s Human Resource portal, the truth emerged: no such person existed.
The case exposes not only the scale of the fraud but also the fragility of government systems that allowed a fabricated identity to persist unchecked for years.
Salaries Without Service
Records show that the fictitious employee drew ₹69,595 per month in salary from each district posting. Over one year, this amounted to over ₹8.3 lakh from just a single district, and over nine years, the sum ballooned to more than ₹75 lakh per district. When tallied across all six districts—Farrukhabad, Banda, Balrampur, Badaun, Rampur, and Shamli—the fraud is estimated at ₹4.5 crore.
The revelation underscores how an absence of real-time verification allowed parallel appointments under identical credentials, draining public funds without detection.
Probes and Accountability
Alarmed by the findings, the Chief Medical Officer constituted a three-member inquiry team to investigate. Officials, including Dr. Avnindra Kumar, confirmed that proceedings had begun, but acknowledged a larger concern: whether the action would remain confined to paperwork or reach the systemic roots of how such frauds are enabled.
Questions loom over the efficiency of monitoring mechanisms, departmental vigilance, and whether complicity of insiders made the scheme possible. For many, the scandal illustrates not a one-off lapse but a chronic failure of oversight.
A Story of a Broken System
The “Arpit Singh” fraud is more than the tale of a ghost employee. It is emblematic of a governance ecosystem where loopholes are exploited, and where checks often rely on rubber-stamped documents rather than rigorous validation. Observers note that the incident reflects a broader malaise—one where systems sustain non-existent employees while real workers struggle under poor conditions.
As the probe unfolds, the unanswered question remains: Who is responsible? Was it clerical negligence, deliberate collusion, or a deeper culture of corruption that kept a non-existent man “alive” on government rolls for nearly a decade? The answer, critics argue, will determine whether this investigation becomes another forgotten file—or a turning point in public sector accountability.