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

Suneel Kumar vs State of U.P. & Ors

Civil AppealDecided 2 Aug 2022
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2022

Background

The appellant's father, a Class-IV sweeper in a Uttar Pradesh government office, died in service in 2016. The appellant, a graduate with computer literacy, was offered his late father's post of Sweeper under the compassionate appointment rules but refused it, instead seeking appointment to the higher Class-III post of Gram Panchayat Officer, arguing his superior qualifications entitled him to a "suitable" post of that level. The State rejected this, and the High Court ruled against him relying on an earlier Supreme Court decision (State of U.P. v. Premlata) holding that "suitable employment" under Rule 5 must be pegged to the post held by the deceased employee.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that "suitable employment" under Rule 5 of the 1974 Rules must be assessed with reference to the post the deceased employee held, not the dependent's own higher qualifications, since compassionate appointment is meant to provide immediate relief to a bereaved family rather than serve as a general recruitment route. It rejected the appellant's argument that internal government instructions permitted a Class-III appointment even where the deceased held a Class-IV post, holding those instructions were not statutory rules that could override the settled legal position. However, since the death had occurred fairly recently and delay was not attributable to the appellant's own fault, the Court partly allowed the appeal and directed the authorities to appoint him to the post of Sweeper, the post his father had held, within eight weeks.

Lesson Learnt

Compassionate appointment schemes exist to give urgent relief to a bereaved family, not to secure a dependent a job matching their own qualifications; a dependent seeking such appointment is generally entitled only to a post at the same level the deceased employee held.

Suneel Kumar vs State of U.P. & Ors – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware