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

Ushaben Joshi vs. Union of India

Not available · 2024 INSC 624Decided 2 Aug 2024
Not available
Justice Hima Kohli · Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background

Ushaben Joshi was engaged as a "water woman" (a contingency/casual worker) in a Post Office in Gujarat in February 1986. After serving continuously for over 30 years, she repeatedly sought regularisation of her service into a permanent Group 'D' post, but her applications were rejected by the postal department, the Central Administrative Tribunal, and the Gujarat High Court, on the ground that she only worked four hours a day as a contingency worker. She pointed out that another woman, Smt. K.M. Vaghela, who joined the same office years later (in 1991) in a similar contingency role, had already been regularised by the department.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that the department's own record showed Smt. Vaghela's regularisation was an independent departmental decision (not one it was compelled to make by any tribunal order), and the department could not show that her duties or working hours differed from the appellant's in any way. Since a person who joined the service years after the appellant had been given the benefit of regularisation while the appellant, who had served far longer, was denied it, the Court held this amounted to unjustified discrimination between two similarly situated employees. The Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and High Court and directed the department to regularise Ushaben Joshi on the same terms as Smt. Vaghela, with the regularisation to take effect from the date Smt. Vaghela was regularised, along with all consequential benefits, within three months.

Lesson Learnt

An employer cannot deny a long-serving worker a benefit (such as job regularisation) that it has already granted to a similarly placed but more recently joined colleague performing the same duties, doing so violates the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment, and courts will step in to correct such discrimination.

Ushaben Joshi vs. Union of India – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware