ANU LUMBA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as an Assistant Computer Instructor at the Mehar Chand Polytechnic, Jalandhar City. She possessed the qualifications of M.A. in Hindi and Post Graduate Diploma in Computer programming. She was initially appointed on August 5, 1992. Thereafter, she has been granted yearly extensions. After having worked for more than six years, the petitioner had approached this Court through the present writ petition with a two-fold grievance. Firstly, she alleges that the salary as paid by the respondents viz. Rs. 2000/- per month which has since been revised in pursuance to the Court's directions and raised to Rs. 2400/- per month is grossly inadequate and totally arbitrary. Secondly, the petitioner alleges that there is enough workload for a regular post of Computer Instructor. Despite that, she is being kept on yearly basis. No increment is granted. No avenue of promotion is provided. This is so despite the fact that the scheme under which she had been appointed has been in existence since the year 1979.

(2.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the Union of India. It has been averred that on the recommendation of the All India Council for Technical Education in the year 1978, a scheme for Community Polytechnics was introduced. A few selected Polytechnics were asked to act as focal points to promote "the transfer of technology to the rural community...". It was also provided that "these Polytechnics should be designated as Community Polytechnics and given adequate support to carry out their task". Under this scheme, 35 polytechnics were selected and charged with the responsibility of "accelerating the rural development on scientific lines". Under the scheme, "the financial assistance for the activities pertaining to the training, service technology transfer especially of the service centre, provision of the technical and sports services, a recurring grant of 7 lacs per year was considered as adequate." Out of this amount, nor more than 2/3rd is to be spent on the salary of the employees. Since the scheme is for "all practical purposes a project... the employees cannot be given the regular pay scales nor appointed on regular basis, especially in view of the financial constraints". The petitioner having accepted the offer, she is not entitled to claim anything beyond what has been granted to her.

(3.) A separate reply has also been field by the Additional Director, Technical Education, Punjab. It is on similar lines. In the reply filed by respondent No. 3 viz. the Principal of the Institute, it has been averred that the petitioner has not qualified the Post Graduate Diploma as claimed by her. She has only done one year course from a private Coaching Centre.