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

R.K. Yadav v. Union of India

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 848Decided 12 Aug 2026
W.P.(C) No.-000193-000193 - 2012
Justice S.V.N. Bhatti · Justice N.V. Anjaria

Background

The petitioners, Presiding Officers of the Central Government Industrial Tribunals-cum-Labour Courts (CGIT-cum-LCs) at Delhi and Hyderabad, argued that their tribunals deserved the same 6th Pay Commission pay scales given to bodies like the Central Administrative Tribunal, instead of being pegged to District Judiciary pay scales as recommended by the Justice E. Padmanabhan Committee. They claimed this unequal treatment violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that pay fixation is primarily an executive function into which courts exercise only limited judicial review, absent mala fides or a demonstrated anomaly. It found that the petitioners, being re-employed pensioners, formed a distinct class under the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986, which reasonably justified different treatment from regularly serving officers. The Court also noted that CGIT-cum-LCs (other than the National Tribunals at Mumbai and Kolkata) had consistently been equated with the District Judiciary since 1996, following expert recommendations of the Shetty Commission and the Padmanabhan Committee, and that such classification was rational rather than arbitrary.

Lesson Learnt

Courts give substantial deference to expert pay commissions and executive decisions on classifying employees and fixing pay scales; a claim of unequal treatment under Articles 14/16 must show the classification was irrational or made in bad faith, not merely that another arrangement might also have been reasonable.

R.K. Yadav v. Union of India – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware