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

The State of Maharashtra vs Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (Since after marriage Madhuri Santosh Koli)

Civil AppealDecided 30 Sept 2022
Civil Appeal No. 6938 of 2022
M.R. Shah · Krishna Murari

Background

A government clerk died in service, and his widow was given a compassionate appointment; she too later died while in service. The couple's elder married daughter then sought compassionate appointment, which was rejected in 2011 on the ground that a married daughter could not be treated as dependent. Seven years after the mother's death, the younger married daughter (the respondent) also applied for compassionate appointment; her application was rejected, but the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and later the Bombay High Court directed the State to consider and grant her appointment.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court reiterated settled principles that compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal merit-based recruitment rule, is a concession and not a right, exists only to help a family tide over the sudden financial crisis caused by the earner's death, and must be assessed against the norms and dependency existing at the time of consideration. Applying these principles, the Court held the respondent could not be said to be dependent on her deceased mother and, in any event, could not claim compassionate appointment after such a long gap (roughly seven years) from the death. It set aside the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court and allowed the State's appeal.

Lesson Learnt

Compassionate appointment is meant to relieve immediate financial distress following an employee's death, not a delayed or inheritable entitlement: claims made years after the death, or by someone not genuinely dependent at that time, are unlikely to succeed.

The State of Maharashtra vs Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (Since after marriage Madhuri Santosh Koli) – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware