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

Meera Singh v. Deepak Kumar

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 65Decided 8 Jan 2025
Contempt Petition (C) No. 741 of 2020 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1030 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017
Justice J.K. Maheshwari · Justice Rajesh Bindal

Background

The petitioner, a lecturer at Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University in Bihar since 1981, had her absorption as regular staff confirmed in 2018 following a one-man commission's recommendation that the Supreme Court had earlier approved. Even so, she alleged the university had not fully paid her salary arrears, and after her retirement in December 2019, her pension was put on hold pending an inquiry into whether she had actually worked during a disputed period.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that determining whether the petitioner had actually worked during the disputed period, and thus whether she was entitled to arrears and pension, required a proper fact-finding inquiry rather than being decided within a contempt petition. It clarified that the pension issue had never actually been addressed in the earlier court orders being relied upon, so pension could not simply be assumed "stopped" by those orders. The Court disposed of the case with directions requiring the petitioner to submit her claim with documents to the university's Registrar/Vice-Chancellor, who must hold a fair inquiry and decide both salary arrears and pension within set time limits, with the High Court available if she remains dissatisfied.

Lesson Learnt

When a factual dispute (such as whether someone actually worked during a certain period) stands between an employee and their dues, courts will typically direct a structured administrative inquiry with firm deadlines rather than resolve the factual question themselves in a contempt proceeding: retirees should pursue such claims through a documented administrative process.

Meera Singh v. Deepak Kumar – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware