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

Mukesh Kumar & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Civil AppealDecided 24 Feb 2022
Civil Appeal No. 1620 of 2022

Background

Jagdish Harijan, a Railways employee with two wives, died in service in 2014. His first wife sought a compassionate appointment for her step-son (the appellant), who was born to the second wife, but the Railways rejected the request on the ground that a Railway Board circular barred compassionate appointment to children born of an employee's second marriage. This rejection was upheld by the departmental appeal, the Central Administrative Tribunal, and finally the Patna High Court, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held the issue was squarely covered by its earlier decision in Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi, which had already struck down the same Railway Board circular as arbitrary and violative of Article 14, since a child born of a second marriage is deemed legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act and cannot be denied a benefit available to children of a first marriage. The Court additionally held that denying appointment solely because the claimant's mother was a second wife amounts to discrimination on the ground of "descent," expressly prohibited by Article 16(2) of the Constitution. It set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the Railways to consider the appellant's compassionate appointment application on merits within three months, while leaving it open to the authorities to verify that all other eligibility conditions were met.

Lesson Learnt

A child cannot be denied a benefit like compassionate government appointment merely because they were born to their father's second wife. The law treats such children as legitimate, and excluding them amounts to unconstitutional discrimination based on descent, which the Constitution expressly forbids.

Mukesh Kumar & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware