Facts: The petitioner, holding B.A. and B.Ed. qualifications, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on a temporary basis in 1992 at a school run by the Osmanabad Municipal Council. Despite his initial temporary status, his services were approved by the authorities, and he rendered continuous, uninterrupted service for over 20 years until his retirement on superannuation in 2012. Under Government Resolutions (GR) dated 17.06.2002 and 11.11.2011, such teachers were entitled to regularization and retiral benefits. However, the respondent authorities repeatedly rejected his proposals for regularization and pensionary benefits, primarily citing a lack of vacant permanent posts for graduate teachers. This led to multiple rounds of litigation before the High Court.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after withdrawing a previous petition (WP No. 9917/2013) with liberty to specifically challenge the order dated 25.03.2009, wherein the Divisional Commissioner had rejected his regularization proposal.
Issue: Whether a teacher who has rendered over 20 years of continuous service can be denied regularization and pensionary benefits solely on the ground of non-availability of vacant posts, despite meeting the criteria set by Government Resolutions?
Holding: Yes, the petitioner is entitled to regularization and all consequential retiral benefits. The Court quashed the rejection order and directed the respondents to process the petitioner's pension and arrears within three months.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that continuous service for more than two decades cannot be classified as "casual" or "intermittent". Such prolonged service creates a "legitimate expectation" of being treated on par with regular employees for social welfare benefits. The Court found it "inconceivable" and "unacceptable" that the authorities failed to create a post or accommodate a qualified teacher over 20 years. Relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in "Yashwant Hari Katakkar vs. Union of India", the Court held that long years of quasi-permanent service must be treated as permanent for pensionary purposes. Denial of these benefits would defeat the object of pensionary provisions, which serve as vital social security measures.