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

Union of India & Ors. vs. C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr.

Civil AppealDecided 6 Apr 2022
Civil Appeal Nos. 2087-2088 of 2022
M.R. Shah · B.V. Nagarathna

Background

The respondents were promoted to the post of Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs in 2000. Some of their juniors, who had joined the department later, were subsequently granted pay upgradation under the government's Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme in 2005-2006 and, as a result, began drawing higher salaries than the respondents, their seniors. The respondents asked the department to correct this anomaly by "stepping up" their pay to match their juniors; when this was refused, they went to the Central Administrative Tribunal, which rejected their claim, but the Karnataka High Court later ruled in their favour, directing the pay to be stepped up.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court and dismissed the Union of India's appeal. It clarified that the respondents were not actually claiming a benefit under the ACP Scheme itself (which they were not otherwise entitled to, having already been promoted); rather, they were invoking a separate and well-established rule, Fundamental Rule (FR) 22, which corrects the anomaly that arises when a senior employee ends up drawing less pay than a junior employee in the same cadre and identical post, purely because of a scheme benefit given to the junior. Since all the conditions of FR 22 were satisfied on the facts, the respondents were entitled to have their pay stepped up to match their juniors from the date the juniors started drawing higher pay.

Lesson Learnt

When a junior employee ends up earning more than a senior in the same cadre and post purely due to a separate government scheme, the senior has an independent, well-settled right under the pay-anomaly rules (FR 22) to have their pay corrected: this is distinct from, and does not depend on, any claim under the scheme itself.

Union of India & Ors. vs. C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware