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

State of Gujarat and Ors. vs. R.J. Pathan and Ors.

Civil AppealDecided 24 Mar 2022
Civil Appeal No. 1951 of 2022

Background

The respondents were engaged in 2004 as drivers on eleven-month contracts under a temporary "Post-Earthquake Redevelopment Programme" unit of the Gujarat Government. When that project unit was to close, the State tried to place them with the Indian Red Cross Society instead of terminating them, but the employees challenged this and sought regularisation into permanent government service. Their writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge in 2011, but on appeal a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in 2021 directed the State to sympathetically consider regularising them, given they had by then worked for seventeen years, even by creating supernumerary posts if necessary.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had overlooked that roughly ten of those seventeen years were served only because of an interim status-quo order in ongoing litigation, and such interim-order service cannot count towards a regularisation claim. It held that the employees were appointed to posts in a genuinely temporary project unit, not any sanctioned post in a regular establishment, so the precedents relied on (State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and Narendra Kumar Tiwari), which apply to irregular appointments on regular sanctioned posts, did not help them. The Court also held that a High Court cannot direct creation of supernumerary posts under Article 226. The Division Bench's order was quashed and the original dismissal of the writ petition was restored.

Lesson Learnt

Long service rendered only because of a court's interim order does not itself create a right to regularisation, and courts cannot direct the creation of new government posts to accommodate temporary-project employees who were never appointed against sanctioned permanent posts.

State of Gujarat and Ors. vs. R.J. Pathan and Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware