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

Raspelli Bhagya Kistaiya v. General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 841Decided 12 Aug 2026
Civil Appeal (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7244 of 2026)
Justice Aravind Kumar · Justice Vipul M. Pancholi

Background

The appellant's father, a Dozer Operator with Western Coalfields Limited for nearly 36 years, died in service in December 2020, when the appellant (his son) was just short of 35 years: the upper age limit for compassionate appointment under Clause 9.3.4 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA). The family approached the company in January 2021, and the company itself directed the appellant to undergo police verification that same week, but he turned 35 shortly after, and his formal application was processed only by mid-2021 amid COVID-19 disruption. The company rejected his claim in 2023, nearly two years later, on the ground that he had crossed 35 by the time it was considered, and the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) upheld that rejection.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Clause 9.3.4 does not specify a cut-off date for measuring age, and that the company's own act of directing police verification in early January 2021 (while the appellant was still under 35) showed the compassionate-appointment process had already begun by then, since verification could not logically precede a live claim. The Court relied on its earlier ruling in Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, which held that an eligible applicant cannot be penalised for delay caused by the employer's own slow processing, and applications should ideally be decided within six months. Since the appellant was undisputedly eligible both on his father's date of death and when the process began, and the company took about 19 months just to reject the claim after receiving his formal application, the Court held the rejection unsustainable. It set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the company to reconsider the claim treating him as eligible in age, examining only the remaining conditions, within eight weeks.

Lesson Learnt

In compassionate-appointment cases, an applicant who was within the eligibility age when the process genuinely started cannot be disqualified simply because the employer took too long to decide the claim. The law does not let an employer benefit from its own delay.

Raspelli Bhagya Kistaiya v. General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware