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

M. Ganeshan v. Union of India

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 823Decided 4 Aug 2026
C.A. No.-012201-012201 - 2016
Justice Dipankar Datta · Justice Sheel Nagu

Background

M. Ganeshan, a government employee, successfully got the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta to direct that his 1983 appointment to a Group 'C' post be treated as a fresh/direct recruitment, making him eligible for 1st and 2nd ACP benefits at par with similarly placed colleagues. The Calcutta High Court initially dismissed the government's challenge to this order, but later, on a review petition, a Division Bench reversed itself and allowed the government's plea, reasoning that the earlier dismissal was based solely on "parity" with six other employees whose own benefits had since been withdrawn. Ganeshan appealed to the Supreme Court against this reversal.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's review order contained an error apparent on the face of the record. Examining the original 2010 order, the Court found the earlier Bench had dismissed the government's writ petition on multiple independent grounds, not merely parity with the six employees, including a specific finding that Ganeshan's 1983 appointment was a fresh appointment entitling him to ACP benefits. Since those other findings were never under challenge in the review petition, the review court's assumption that parity was the "sole ground" was factually incorrect and could not justify overturning the earlier decision. The Court set aside the 2013 review order and restored the 2010 order dismissing the government's writ petition, directing the government to implement the Tribunal's order within three months.

Lesson Learnt

A court's power of review can only be exercised for an error apparent on the face of the record, not to re-litigate a decision by mischaracterizing why it was originally made. If a ruling rested on multiple grounds, a review cannot succeed by attacking just one of them while ignoring the others that independently support the outcome.

M. Ganeshan v. Union of India – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware