Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Shamin Azad Education Society vs Mohd. Zaki Javed (Dead) Thr. Lrs on 12 November, 2025
Author: J.K. Maheshwari
Bench: J.K. Maheshwari
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2412 OF 2025
SHAMIN AZAD EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MOHD. ZAKI JAVED (DEAD)
THR. LRS & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2413 OF 2025
O R D E R
1. Arising out of the order dated 03.03.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur restoring the order of the School Tribunal, the appellants have filed the present appeals.
2. The facts in brief are Mohd. Zaki Javed was appointed by the Shamin Azad Education Society vide order dated 30.06.1996 till the end of academic session. The said appointment was approved by the Education Officer vide Signature Not Verified letter Digitally signed by Gulshan Kumar Arora dated 23.11.1996. As per notice issued on Date: 2025.11.22 11:03:36 IST Reason:
231.03.1997 the service of Mohd Zaki Javed stood terminated w.e.f. 30.04.1997. He filed appeal before the School Tribunal which was dismissed vide order dated 17.09.2002 on the ground of delay. On filing a Writ Petition No. 4535 of 2002, it was allowed and vide order dated 15.12.2003 the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh decision.
3. In furtherance, the Tribunal vide order dated 04.01.2006 dismissed the appeal for want of justification. On filing a Writ Petition No. 6016/2006, High Court vide order dated 21.12.2011 remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the question as to whether the management was justified in terminating the services of the petitioner because his work, conduct and behavior was not found satisfactory being probationer. Aggrieved against the said order, the society preferred a Letters Patent Appeal No. 80 of 2012 and vide order dated 24.08.2012 the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal to consider the entire challenge afresh in accordance with law. In consequence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by Mohd. Zaki Javed and issued the following 3 directions:
“1. Appeal is partly allowed.
2. The impugned termination order dated 30.04.1997 issued by respondent No.1 terminating services of the appellant from the post of assistant teacher is quashed and set aside.
3. The respondent No. 1 and 2 are directed to reinstate the appellant to his post of assistant teacher within period of 40 days from today. The appellant be deemed to be continued in service for all service benefits w.e.f. 01.07.1996 and he is entitled to all the benefits of continuous service accordingly.
4. Prayer of back wages is rejected.
5. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.”
4. It is needless to say that in paragraph 49, the interest of the appellant in the connected appeal was protected. On filing the writ petition against the judgment of the Tribunal by the society as well as the appellant in the connected case bearing Civil Appeal No. 2084 of 2013, it was dismissed with the following observations:
“In the facts of this case, there is total non-compliance of Rules 14 and 15. No material, as contemplated by sub-rule (6) of Rule 15 of the MEPS Rules, was produced before the School Tribunal.
There is nothing on record to show that 4 any adverse remark was communicated to the respondent No. 3, as contemplated by sub-rule (3) of Rule 15. Hence, the only inference, which needs to be drawn on the basis of sub-rule (5) of Rule 15, is that the work of the employee concerned was found to be satisfactory during the period of probation. The stand of the Management is of the abandonment of service on one hand and the stand of misconduct, willful absence of duty, etc., is on the other hand. It is not substantiated. No enquiry was held in respect of the serious allegations of misconduct of varied nature. In view of this, no fault can be found with the view taken by the School Tribunal that the termination of the respondent no.3 was not as a probationer. The School Tribunal has not awarded any back wages and there is no petition preferred challenging the same by the employee.”
5. The judgment of the Tribunal as well as the High Court has been assailed by the Society as well as Mushrifulla Khan by filing two separate appeals. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the reasoning as given by the Tribunal and the High Court, in our view interference in the order impugned is not warranted.
6. At this stage, learned counsel representing the society has strenuously urged that, Mohd. Zaki Javed who 5 has since died was not reinstated in the society and he had worked in other institutions, therefore, the benefit of continuity may not be available to him. All those documents were not produced, and all those issues were not dealt with by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court. Therefore, in our view, at this stage we do not embark upon the argument as advanced by him before us. It is suffice to say that the person who was directed to be reinstated as per the aforementioned order of Tribunal, could not reap the fruits on account of his death during litigation. Therefore, in terms of the order of the Tribunal so far as it relates to continuity of service what benefit may be available to him may be decided afresh by the Tribunal on placing the material on record by the Society after affording an opportunity to rebut those to the LRs of the deceased and hearing the parties only on the said issue.
7. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere in the order impugned passed by the Tribunal and the High Court. However, for a limited purpose to determine the nature of the benefit of continuity of service, the matter is 6 remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. If so advised, the appellant Mushrifulla Khan is at liberty to file the objections, if he is going to be affected. In case the society approaches the Tribunal within one month, the issue be decided in accordance with law within three months.
8. We however, make it clear that in case the Society or the appellant-Mushrifulla Khan do not approach the Tribunal within the time as specified, the right of the Society would be seized to proceed further and the LRs of the deceased would be entitled to the appropriate claims.
9. Accordingly, and in view of the above, the appeals are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………………………………………………,J.
[J.K. MAHESHWARI] …………………………………………………,J.
[VIJAY BISHNOI] 7 New Delhi;
November 12, 2025.
8
ITEM NO.106 COURT NO.4 SECTION III
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 2412/2025
SHAMIN AZAD EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MOHD. ZAKI JAVED (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 47761/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ ANNEXURES) WITH C.A. No. 2413/2025 (III) (FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 1/2014 FOR APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION ON IA 87516/2018 FOR APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION ON IA 125722/2018 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN. ON IA 125723/2018 IA No. 1/2014
- EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 12-11-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nakul Mohta, Adv.
Ms. Misha Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Ayush Kashyap, Adv.
Ms. Surabhi Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Farrukh Rasheed, AOR For Respondent(s) :Mr. Salim A Inamdar, Adv.
Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR Mr. Yuvraj Kashyap, Adv.
Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Farrukh Rasheed, AOR Ms. Shifa, Adv.
Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, AOR 9 Mr. Nakul Mohta, Adv.
Ms. Misha Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Ayush Kashyap, Adv.
Ms. Surabhi Agarwal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA) (NAND KISHOR)
AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)