LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

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

Vibhuti Shankar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 105Decided 8 Feb 2023
Civil Appeal No. 916 of 2023
S. Ravindra Bhat · Sudhanshu Dhulia · Aniruddha Bose

Background

The appellant was engaged in 1980 as a daily-rated Supervisor under a project of the Madhya Pradesh Water Resources Department. He sought regularisation as Supervisor/Time Keeper, a post whose minimum qualification (matriculation with mathematics) he did not have, though a 2010 government circular later relaxed it. In 2018 the department rejected his claim, saying he had never been appointed against any post, was not appointed by the competent authority, and no posts were available. A Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court nonetheless ordered his regularisation from the date his juniors were regularised, but a Division Bench set that aside in February 2020.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the Division Bench had rightly applied the Constitution Bench decision in Umadevi, under which regularisation of a temporary or daily-wage worker requires, at minimum, that the initial appointment was made by the competent authority and that the employee was working against a sanctioned post. Both conditions were absent here: the appellant had never been appointed against a post, nor by the competent authority. Long service alone, or the fact that juniors had been regularised, could not create a right to regularisation, and there was no ground to interfere with the Division Bench's order.

Lesson Learnt

Working for decades as a daily wager does not by itself entitle a person to a permanent government job; the Umadevi rule requires an appointment by the competent authority against a sanctioned post. Anyone relying on years of ad hoc service for regularisation should check whether those two conditions are actually met.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)
Vibhuti Shankar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware