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 vs Anil Prasad

Civil AppealDecided 20 May 2022
Civil Appeal No. 4073 of 2022
M.R. Shah · B.V. Nagarathna

Background

The respondent, a Major in the Indian Army discharged in 2007 while drawing a basic pay of Rs. 28,340, was later appointed as an Assistant Commandant (Medical Officer) in the CRPF with a lower basic pay, though he was given advance increments for his years of Army service. He claimed that, on re-employment, Para 8 of the CCS Order entitled him to have his pay fixed at par with his last drawn Army pay. The Delhi High Court agreed and directed the government to rework his pay fixation accordingly, prompting the Union of India to appeal.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court closely analysed Para 8 of the CCS Order, which grants advance increments for years served in the Armed Forces on the pay scale of the new civil post, but caps ("should not exceed") the resulting figure at the last drawn Army pay. The Court held this cap is a ceiling, not a guarantee: the provision does not entitle a re-employed officer to have his pay automatically fixed at, or protected at, his last Army salary; it merely prevents the computed civil pay from exceeding that figure. Applying this, the respondent's civil pay (computed via the CRPF's own pay scale plus increments) did not exceed his last Army pay, so it was correctly and lawfully fixed. The Court held the High Court had misread Para 8, allowed the government's appeal, quashed the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the original writ petition.

Lesson Learnt

A rule capping a re-employed pensioner's new pay so that it cannot exceed his last drawn pay in his earlier government job is a protective ceiling against overpayment. It does not, by itself, create an entitlement to be paid at that earlier, possibly higher, rate.

Union of India vs Anil Prasad – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware