Dismissed

Amlesh Kumar Singh v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Sept 2026WP(C)/7210/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Non-Recommendation of the petitioner for dependent employment under the National Coal Wage Agreement. The petitioner suffered discrepancies in his name and date of birth between his father's service records (entered before the petitioner's claimed birth) and his educational certificates. The Court held that the competent authority did not act arbitrarily in rejecting the claim given these significant, unexplained discrepancies, distinguishing the case from a coordinate judgment relied upon by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, holding that competent authority's decision to reject the claim for dependent employment was not arbitrary or illegal.

Amlesh Kumar Singh Vs the Union of India and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2026)

¶1

GAHC010222382022

¶2

2026:GAU-AS:13810

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/7210/2022

¶6

AMLESH KUMAR SINGH

¶7

S/O- LATE PANCHANAND SINGH, PERMANENT R/O- VILLAGE FURSATPUR, P.O- GARKHA UNDER GARKKHA POLICE STATION, IN THE DISTRICT OF CHHAPRA (SARAN), BIHAR, PIN-841311

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS

¶10

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COAL, RAJPATH CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI- 110001

¶11

2:THE COAL INDIA LIMITED HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE COAL BHAWAN PLOT NO. AF-III ACTION AREA- 1A NEWTOWN RAJARHAT KOLKATA- 700156

¶12

3:THE GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EASTERN COALFIELDS COAL INDIA LIMITED MARGHERITA PIN- 786181 DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM

¶13

4:THE AREA MANAGER NORTH EASTERN COALFIELDS

¶14

Page 1 of 15

¶15

COAL INDIA LIMITED MARGHERITA PIN- 786181 DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P KATAKI, MS. M DEVI,MRS R BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, COAL INDIA, MR. A M DUTTA (R2,3,4), MR M Z AHMED (R-2,3,4)

¶17

BEFORE

¶18

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶19

ORDER

¶20

15.09.2026

¶21

Heard Mr. P Kataki, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mrs. R Begum, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M Z Ahmed, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A M Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

¶22

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing, inter alia, the non-recommendation of the case of the petitioner on 04.09.2020 for dependent employment under the National Coal Wage Agreement [hereinafter referred to as NCWA].

¶23

3. The case of the petitioner is that his father late Panchananad Singh who was working as an Office Superintendent posted at Tipong Colliery of North Eastern Coal India Ltd. having its office at Margherita, District-Tinsukia died while in service on 28.01.2017. Accordingly, the petitioner on 12.08.2017 filed an application form for getting employment as per the provisions of Para 9.3.2 of the NCWA-V as the dependent of the said deceased employee.

¶24

4. On 30.08.2019 the then Assistant Manager, North Eastern Coal Fields India, Margherita informed the agent of the Tipong Colliery that

¶25

Page 2 of 15

¶26

the proposal of employment of the petitioner was examined and forwarded to the Coal India Limited, Kolkata for approval by its Screening Committee.

¶27

5. It was mentioned therein that the date of birth of the candidate is not clear. Two dates were mentioned in the said application, namely, one date of birth as 15.10.1988 as per the HSLC examination certificate and the other as 01.01.1985 as recorded in the service book of his late father. However, no outcome of the aforesaid exercise having been informed, the petitioner sought the information under the RTI Act.

¶28

6. In response thereof, the respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner by letter dated 11.06.2022 that due to non-recommendation by the Screening Committee of the Coal India Limited, Kolkata for offer for appointment due to non-establishment of the genuineness of the identity of the dependent applicant, the case of the petitioner could not be considered for appointment under the NCWA-V.

¶29

7. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the Matriculation and Higher Secondary Certificates issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna as well as the Birth Certificate issued by the Registrar, Births and Deaths, having been submitted before the authority showing the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.10.1988, the same ought to have been accepted and the appointment in question ought to have been considered in favor of the petitioner. Accordingly, the decision of the competent authority of Coal India Limited, Kolkata not to recommend the case of the petitioner suffers from gross abuse of the power, the same being illegal and irrational. Situated thus, the present writ petition has been preferred.

¶30

8. Mr. Kataki, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of birth of the petitioner initially have been wrongly disclosed by his late father in his service book, however, the mark-

¶31

Page 3 of 15

¶32

sheet as well as the birth certificate clearly indicates the correct date of birth of the petitioner as 15.10.1988 and as such, there is no confusion whatsoever as regards his date of birth. In this light, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the competent authority ought to have accepted the date of birth recorded in the mark-sheet as well as the birth certificate and consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment under the dependent employment scheme framed by the respondent authorities.

¶33

9. In support of his submission that in the event there is a discrepancy in the date of birth, the date recorded in the mark-sheet shall prevail, Mr. Kataki, learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Umesh Ram -Vs- The Central Coalfields Ltd. in WP(S) No. 3532/2018.

¶34

10 . Per contra, Mr. M Z Ahmed, learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that the competent authority having noted that there is a doubt as regards the genuineness of the date of birth recorded in the birth certificate and the identity of the petitioner as the petitioner has been identified as one Sri Amlesh Kumar in the recommendation of the NEC committee, the case of the petitioner for recommendation for offer of dependent employment could not be considered. He further submits that the petitioner’s father while filling up the details of the dependents at the time of entry in the service book on 22.12.1987 had himself disclosed that amongst his wife, mother and children, name of one of his sons is Amlesh Kumar Singh, i.e., the petitioner herein and whose date of birth is 01.01.1985. He further submits that there is no clear recommendation of the NEC committee as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner in his favor, inasmuch as, the name recorded in the recommendation of the NEC committee is in respect of one Amlesh Kumar, whereas the name

¶35

Page 4 of 15

¶36

of the petitioner is Amlesh Kumar Singh. The Screening Committee accordingly did not recommend the offer of employment to the petitioner. He further submits that the decision of the competent authority as such could not be termed as arbitrary or irrational. He further submits that since the decision of the competent authority is arrived upon consideration of the relevant materials, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not sit in appeal against such decision. He accordingly submits that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

11 . I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record. I have also duly considered the case laws cited at the bar.

¶38

12 . The issue involved in the instant writ petition essentially pertains to the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for dependent employment in Coal India Limited, the respondent company, on the ground that the genuineness of his identity could not be established on account of discrepancies in his name and date of birth.

¶39

13 . It appears that, as per the service records of the deceased father of the petitioner, the name and date of birth of the petitioner were recorded as “Amlesh Kumar Singh” and “01.01.1985”, respectively. However, in the educational certificates issued by the Bihar School Examination Board and the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, as well as in the birth certificate issued by the Department of Planning and Development, the name and date of birth of the petitioner are recorded as “Amlesh Kumar” and “15.10.1988”, respectively.

¶40

14 . It appears that, following the death of the deceased employee, his wife submitted an application dated 18.04.2017, offering her eldest son, i.e. the petitioner, for dependent employment under Clause 9.3.0

¶41

Page 5 of 15

¶42

of the NCWA. In the said application, the name of her son was mentioned as “Amlesh Kumar Singh”. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another application dated 28.07.2017, enclosing an affidavit and a newspaper cutting, seeking to explain the discrepancy in his name and date of birth. In the said application, he mentioned his name as “Amlesh Kumar”.

¶43

15 . It further appears that the petitioner thereafter submitted a formal application dated 12.08.2017, in terms of the provisions of NCWA-V (now NCWA-IX), along with the verification roll, identification certificate, attestation form and other requisite documents. In the said application, while furnishing his date of birth, the petitioner mentioned two different dates, namely, “01.01.1985” as per the service record and “15.10.1988” as per the matriculation certificate. Further, while furnishing the particulars of the surviving members of the deceased employee, the petitioner disclosed his age as 32 years and 1 month as on 11.08.2017. Thus, the materials on record disclose that there were discrepancies not only in the name of the petitioner but also in the date of birth furnished by him in the course of his claim for dependent employment.

¶44

16 . It appears that, upon receipt of the relevant papers and documents, the case of the petitioner for dependent employment was processed in accordance with the applicable rules of the respondent company and was forwarded on 25.01.2019 for consideration and approval of the competent authority of Coal India Limited, Kolkata. Thereafter, the Screening Committee of Coal India Limited considered the case and, by its observations dated 24.07.2019, recorded as follows:

¶45

"1. From the recommendations of NEC Committee, the date of Birth of the Candidate, Sri Amlesh Kumar is not clear, there are two dates mentioned there, one DoB (15-10-1988) as per HSLC Certificate) and other (01-01-1985) as recorded in the service

¶46

Page 6 of 15

¶47

book (C/27), PS-3, PS4 (C30, 32) & LTC Clam (C/34) of the deceased employee. Therefore, NEC Committee may look into the records to ascertain and recommend alongwith supporting documents, the correct Date of Birth of the candidate Sri Amlesh Kumar.

¶48

2. Signature & seal of GM (NEC) is not present on Page 2 of Application Form (Proforma-1) submitted by the candidate. This may kindly be obtained before resubmission by NEC Committee to CIL Hqr (C/6).

¶49

3. In Indemnity Bond, two sureties are jointly held responsible but they have not categorically accepted that irregularities found in any of the facts stated by dependents/family will subject the sureties to disciplinary/legal action.

¶50

In view of above, the committee is of the view that NEC Committee may be advised to look into the above resubmit and observation the case file/recommendations after addressing the above stated issues."

¶51

17 . Thereafter, by letter dated 30.08.2019, the concerned unit of NEC, Coal India Limited was directed to clarify the matter. Upon the requisite clarification being furnished, the proposal was again forwarded to Coal India Limited, Kolkata on 01.11.2019. Thereafter, the Screening Committee of Coal India Limited, Kolkata, in its meeting held on 04.09.2020, considered the proposal and did not recommend the petitioner’s case for dependent employment. The relevant observations of the Screening Committee read as follows:

¶52

“ The genuineness of the identity of the dependent applicant Shri Amlesh Kumar Singh is not established on verifying the Date of Birth as mentioned in Service Book and PS-3. In view of this, the Committee does not recommend for offer of employment."

¶53

18 . Thereafter, the case of the petitioner for dependent employment was again placed before the local management level at NEC, CIL, Margherita, whereupon the following observation was made:

¶54

“Though in the service book of Late Panchanand Singh the date of birth of Sri Amlesh Kumar is mentioned as 01-011985 and in PS-3 as 2 years as on 01-01-1987 but as per his

¶55

Page 7 of 15

¶56

educational certificate submitted by him, his date of birth is recorded as 15-10-1988. The certificate has also been verified from the concerned Board and Board has confirmed the date of birth of Shri Amlesh Kumar as 15-10-1988 (Pg No. 48& 75).

¶57

Further as per the provision of Implementation Instruction No. 76 of NCWA (Pg No. 91& 92): Quote

¶58

In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examination, the date of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. Unquote"

¶59

19 . Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was once again forwarded for consideration of the competent authority by communication dated 18.11.2020. The competent authority recommended that the case be examined in the light of the decision in the sub judice dependent employment case of Shri Souvik Sengupta, son of late Moloy Sengupta of NEC.

¶60

Accordingly, the case of the petitioner was once again processed at NEC, CIL, and necessary steps were undertaken to ascertain the genuineness of the identity of the petitioner, namely, Amlesh Kumar. For the said purpose, a committee conducted an enquiry with the neighbours and co-workers of late Panchanand Singh. Upon such enquiry, it was found that Amlesh Kumar was the son of late Panchanand Singh and that he had completed his Intermediate examination from the Bihar School Examination Board, wherein his date of birth was recorded as 15.10.1988.

¶61

20. It appears that the said NEC Committee was of the opinion that, in terms of Implementation Instruction No. 76 of NCWA, the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate/admit card was required to be treated as final.

¶62

21 . Accordingly, by letter dated 27.12.2021, NEC forwarded its recommendation in favour of the petitioner, namely, Amlesh Kumar, to

¶63

Page 8 of 15

¶64

Coal India Limited, Kolkata. The relevant portion of the said recommendation reads as follows:

¶65

“ In view of the above and further as per the provision of 11 No 76 the Screening Committee of NFC hereby confirm that the correct date of birth of Shri Amlesh Kumar S/o Late Panchanand Singh is 15 10-1988 which has been recorded in his educational certificate and Birth Certificate and therefore it is recommended for approval of the competent authority to provide dependent employment to Shri Amiesi Kumar S/o Late Panchanand Singh. ”

¶66

22 . The aforesaid recommendation of NEC was thereafter placed before the competent authority, i.e. the Screening Committee of Coal India Limited, Kolkata. Upon consideration of the recommendation of the NEC Committee and the case of the petitioner, the Screening Committee, in its meeting held on 04.02.2022, rejected the claim of the petitioner by reiterating its earlier decision taken in the meeting held on 04.09.2020 not to recommend his case for dependent employment. The relevant observations recorded therein read as follows:

¶67

“After going through the case file and deliberations of NEC committee (noting no. 228/PIR/2929 dated 27/12/2021), this committee has made the following observation:

¶68

SN	Observation	DOB
1	The DOB as recorded by Lt. Panchanand Singh in Service Book i.ro his son Sri Amlesh Kumar is mentioned as	01/01/1985
2	Lt Panchanand Singh submitted PS-3 on 17/05/1998 wherein DOB of Sri Amlesh Kumar Singh is mentioned as-	02 yrs as on 01/01/1987
3	The DOB as recorded by Lt Panchanand Singh in LLTC i.ro his son Sri Amlesh Kumar is mentioned as-	27 yrs as on 08/02/2018
4	As per Matriculate Certificate submitted by Sri Amlesh Kumar the date of birth is mentioned as	15/10/1988

¶69

In view of the above as the committee constituted by NEC has not been able to establish the genuineness of the identity of dependent applicant Sri Amlesh Kumar Singh so there is no reason to make any changes in the recommendation dated 04.09.2020, which did not recommend for offer of appointment

¶70

Page 9 of 15

¶71

due to non-establishment of genuineness of the identity of the dependent applicant Shri Amlesh Kumar Singh." Accordingly, the claim for employment of the Petitioner was regretted by the competent authority of Coal India Limited.”

¶72

23. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner for dependent employment was regretted by the competent authority. Thereafter, the decision of the respondent company was communicated to the petitioner’s mother by letter dated 16.05.2022, whereby she was called upon to apply for monetary compensation within a period of 15 days, failing which it would be presumed that she was not interested in availing the same.

¶73

24. The respondents have filed its affidavit-in-opposition on 08.08.2023, relevant paragraphs of which read as under:

¶74

“ 18. That while denying the correctness of the averments made in Paragraph 8 of the Petition, your humble answering deponent submits that the provision of "Employment to Dependants" of North Eastern Coalfields, Coal India Limited (Respondent Company) is defined at Chapter-IX (Social Security) under Clauses 9.3.0, 9.4.0 and 9.5.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) as adopted by the Respondent Company from time to time. The 1st National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA-I) was adopted on 11/12/1974, which was in operation with effect from 15 January, 1975 to 31 December, 1978, and thereafter, various NCWAs have been adopted, and presently, the provisions of the NCWA-XI are in operation in the Respondent Company. The claim of the Petitioner was rightly rejected by the Respondent Company on the ground of nonestablishment of genuineness of the identity of the Petitioner, Amlesh Kumar Singh for discrepancy with regard to the name and date of birth of the Petitioner in as much as in the Service Record of the father of the Petitioner, Late Panchanand Singh, the name of the Petitioner was written as "AMLESH KR. SINGH" and the date of birth of the Petitioner was recorded as 01/01/1985 whereas the Petitioner has submitted his birth Certificate and the Bihar School Examination Board Certificate, wherein the name of the Petitioner is mentioned as "AMLESH KUMAR" and his date of birth is mentioned as 15/10/1988. Further, no service record can be altered after the death of an employee. It is also pertinent to mention that the deceased

¶75

Page 10 of 15

¶76

employee had signed the service record after declaring his dependent details, and as such the claim of the Petitioner that the date recorded in the service book had no documentary evidence is totally wrong and baseless, and in that view of the matter, the claim of the Petitioner that the decision taken by the competent authority of Coal India Limited, Kolkata not to recommend the case of the Petitioner suffers from the gross abuse of power, same being illegal and irrational, is devoid of merits and is categorically denied.”

¶77

25. It appears that the issue involved in the instant writ petition is not strictly as to whether the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate/mark-sheet or the date of birth recorded in the service book is to prevail. In this regard, Implementation Instruction No. 76 provides as follows:

¶78

“(B) Review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees.

¶79

i) (a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognised Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Boards/Institutions prior to the date of employment.”

¶80

A perusal of the aforesaid provision indicates that, while reviewing the date of birth of an existing employee, the matriculation certificate or higher secondary certificate issued by a recognized university or board, or a middle pass certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction, as well as an admit card issued by the aforesaid bodies, may be treated as correct, provided that the same was issued prior to the date of employment.

¶81

However, in the instant case, this Court is not concerned with determination of the date of birth of the deceased employee. The issue is with regard to the conflicting particulars relating to the name and

¶82

Page 11 of 15

¶83

date of birth of his son, who is claiming appointment under the dependent employment scheme

¶84

26. The controversy assumes significance in view of the fact that the petitioner’s father, while furnishing the particulars of his dependents in his service record, had disclosed the name of the petitioner as “Amlesh Kumar Singh” and his date of birth as 01.01.1985. The petitioner’s mother, while subsequently applying for dependent employment for the petitioner, also disclosed his name as “Amlesh Kumar Singh” and his date of birth as 01.01.1985.

¶85

It further appears that, although the petitioner subsequently disclosed his date of birth as 15.10.1988, purportedly on the basis of his matriculation certificate, in his application for dependent employment, he simultaneously disclosed his age as 32 years and 1 month as on 11.08.2017. The said disclosure is, on the face of it, inconsistent with the date of birth of 15.10.1988 furnished by him in the same application.

¶86

27. Most significantly, the petitioner’s father, while furnishing the particulars of his dependents in his service book on 22.12.1987, had recorded the name of his son as “Amlesh Kumar Singh” and his age as about 2 years as on the said date. If the petitioner’s date of birth is, in fact, 15.10.1988, as subsequently claimed on the basis of his matriculation certificate, the aforesaid entry made by his father on 22.12.1987, i.e. prior to the date of the petitioner’s claimed birth, cannot be reconciled with such claim.

¶87

28 . Thus, the materials on record disclose cumulative discrepancies concerning both the name and date of birth of the petitioner. It appears that these discrepancies were taken into consideration by the competent authority while examining the petitioner’s claim for dependent employment and ultimately resulted in rejection of his claim.

¶88

Page 12 of 15

¶89

29 . It is well settled that, while exercising writ jurisdiction, the Court is primarily concerned with the decision-making process and not with the decision per se. Where the decision-making process is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or otherwise vitiated by illegality, this Court can certainly exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to correct the same.

¶90

30 . Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind and upon careful perusal of the materials available on record, this Court does not find any such arbitrariness or illegality in the decision-making process of the competent authority as would warrant interference in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

¶91

31 . The decision of the competent authority appears to have been founded upon the particulars disclosed by the petitioner’s parents in the contemporaneous records, as well as the disclosures subsequently made by the petitioner himself while seeking appointment under the dependent employment scheme. The petitioner has not been able to satisfactorily reconcile the discrepancies relating to his name and date of birth appearing in the aforesaid records. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that, in the event of a discrepancy in the date of birth, the date recorded in the matriculation certificate ought to prevail cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, be applied mechanically. The applicability of such a principle would necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances in which the discrepancy has arisen. In the present case, the contemporaneous entry made by the petitioner’s father in the service book on 22.12.1987, recording the petitioner’s name and age as about two years, raises a serious inconsistency with the petitioner’s subsequent claim that his date of birth is 15.10.1988.

¶92

Page 13 of 15

¶93

Accordingly, the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, Umesh Ram (supra), is distinguishable on facts and does not advance the case of the petitioner.

¶94

32 . It is, however, made clear that this Court is not, in the present proceeding, adjudicating upon the genuineness or otherwise of the matriculation certificate or birth certificate produced by the petitioner. For the purpose of examining the validity of the decision-making process, it is sufficient to note that the material discrepancies concerning the petitioner’s name and date of birth remained unexplained. In such circumstances, the decision of the competent authority not to recommend the petitioner for dependent employment cannot be said to suffer from arbitrariness or illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶95

33 . In view of the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶96

34. Before parting with the records of this proceeding, it is pertinent to place on record certain facts which have come to the notice of this Court while editing the draft judgment after its dictation in open Court.

¶97

It appears that, while filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner’s name was reflected as “Amlesh Kumar Singh” in the causetitle of the synopsis, list of dates, index and proceeding. In the affidavit, though the petitioner’s name was initially typed as “Amlesh Kumar”, the last name, namely, “Singh”, was subsequently inserted by hand, without any signature or initial of the person making such insertion. Consequently, the case came to be registered in the CIS with the petitioner’s name as “Amlesh Kumar Singh”. It is, however, noticed that, after registration of the case, the last name “Singh” was erased

¶98

Page 14 of 15

¶99

by applying whitener in the cause-title appearing in the synopsis, list of dates, index and proceeding, thereby changing the petitioner’s name from “Amlesh Kumar Singh” to “Amlesh Kumar”. A similar correction appears to have been made in the affidavit by applying whitener over the last name “Singh”, which had earlier been inserted by hand. Significantly, none of the aforesaid corrections bears any signature, initial or date. The petitioner’s name, including his last name, assumes significance in the controversy involved in the present writ petition. The manner in which the petitioner’s name appears to have been altered in the records, particularly after registration of the case in the CIS, where the petitioner’s name continues to be reflected as “Amlesh Kumar Singh”, raises serious concerns regarding the sanctity and integrity of the Court records. In the absence of any office note, endorsement, signature or initial evidencing or authorising such alteration, the circumstances prima facie indicate an unauthorised alteration of the Court records. The matter, therefore, cannot be ignored. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to enquire into the matter and place a report before the Hon’ble Chief Justice on the Administrative Side for such further action as may be deemed appropriate.

¶100

JUDGE

¶101

Comparing Assistant

¶102

Page 15 of 15

Amlesh Kumar Singh v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amlesh Kumar Singh v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases