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.

Labour & Industrial LawDelhi High Court

Ram Bhawan Singh vs. National Building Construction

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026:DHC:7781Decided 9 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
W.P.(C) 1617/2006CNR: DLHC010699462006
Justice Amit Mahajan

Background

The petitioner-workman was employed as a Crane Operator in 1986 and was later "regularised" by an appointment letter in 1992 that designated his post as "Senior Crane Operator." Despite this designation, he continued to be paid a lower pay scale than even an ordinary Crane Operator. The Labour Court had rejected his claim for the higher Senior Crane Operator pay scale, finding no evidence he was ever actually promoted to that post.

Decision Breakdown

The High Court agreed that the "Senior Crane Operator" designation in his appointment letter was likely an inadvertent clerical error, since Senior Crane Operator is a promotional post reached only through an actual promotion process (which never happened in his case), so he could not claim that higher pay scale. However, the Court found it undisputed that he had, at all times, actually functioned as a Crane Operator, yet was being paid even less than the pay scale fixed for that very post by the employer's own 1993 circular. The Court held that an employer cannot pay different, lower wages to employees holding the identical post and performing the same duties merely because they entered service through regularisation rather than direct recruitment. The petition was partly allowed, entitling him to the correct Crane Operator pay scale (though not the higher Senior Crane Operator scale he had originally claimed).

Lesson Learnt

Once an employee belongs to a certain job cadre or post, the employer cannot discriminate in pay scale based merely on how the employee joined (direct recruitment versus later regularisation): the principle of equal pay for equal work within the same cadre must be honoured.

Ram Bhawan Singh vs. National Building Construction – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware