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 Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajib Khan & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 41Decided 16 Jan 2023
Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2023
M.R. Shah · C.T. Ravikumar

Background

The respondents work as Nursing Assistants in hospitals run by the Border Security Force (BSF) and receive a "Hospital Patient Care Allowance". They petitioned the Gauhati High Court claiming they should also get the "Nursing Allowance" that Staff Nurses receive, arguing that they do similar work. The Union of India resisted, pointing out that Staff Nurses complete a four-year course and are registered with the State/Indian Nursing Council, whereas Nursing Assistants complete only a one-year course (with about six months of cadre training) and hold no such registration. The Single Judge ruled for the Nursing Assistants, holding that educational qualification cannot be a ground to deny the allowance, and the Division Bench dismissed the Union's appeal on 2 November 2021.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court allowed the Union's appeal, set aside both High Court orders and dismissed the original writ petition. It held that the High Court's view was directly contrary to a line of Supreme Court decisions: T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao (2015), Pramod Kumar Sahoo (2019) and Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation vs. Balbir Kumar Walia (2021), which establish that classification of posts and pay structure is the executive's domain, that different educational qualifications and experience justify different pay scales even where the nature of work is broadly similar, and that inequality between groups excludes the "equal pay for equal work" principle. Since Nursing Assistants have neither the qualifications nor the experience required for appointment as Staff Nurses, they cannot be compared with them, and the High Court committed a serious error in directing parity. No costs were awarded.

Lesson Learnt

"Equal pay for equal work" applies only between genuinely comparable posts; where the government prescribes different educational qualifications for two posts, it may lawfully pay them differently even if their day-to-day duties overlap.

The Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajib Khan & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware