Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Gurmeet Singh and Ors. Etc. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.

Not available · 2024 INSC 872Decided 18 Nov 2024
Not available
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background

The appellants were employees in the work-charged establishment of Punjab's Irrigation Department who sought benefits under the Proficiency Step-up Scheme, 1988. Their writ petitions were dismissed by a Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and their intra-court (Letters Patent) appeal was also dismissed by a Division Bench in 2012, on the ground that they were not entitled to the scheme's benefits. They then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court noted that other employees of the very same establishment, similarly situated to the appellants, had already been granted Proficiency Step-up benefits, following an earlier tribunal ruling that the Irrigation Department itself had decided to implement unconditionally in November 2010. Holding that the appellants could not be treated differently from equally placed colleagues doing the same kind of work, the Court set aside the High Court's judgments, directed that the appellants' work-charged service be counted as qualifying service for Proficiency Step-up benefits under the 1988 scheme, and ordered payment of the resulting monetary benefits within six months.

Lesson Learnt

The principle of equal treatment bars the government from denying a service benefit to some employees of an establishment when it has already extended the same benefit to other, similarly situated employees performing comparable work.

Gurmeet Singh and Ors. Etc. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware