Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 417
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Praveen Malik, S/o Shri Ramesh C. Malik - Appellant
Versus
Aithent Technologies Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
RFA 646 of 2024
Decided On : 16-06-2026
For the Appellant :Mr. S.C. Anand Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Venancio D'Costa and Ms. Gauri Goel, Advocates.
The burden of proof rests on the claimant to prove that salary reductions were temporary deferments. Absent formal written agreements or board resolutions, internal managerial discussions or ambiguous email exchanges are insufficient to establish an enforceable contractual obligation for the retroactive repayment of salary components.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI, Section 96 - Employment remuneration - Salary restructuring vs. deferment - The burden of proof lies upon the claimant to establish that a reduction in salary was a temporary deferment rather than a permanent restructuring. In the absence of a formal written agreement, authorized board resolution, or specific policy document, claims for the recovery of reduced salary components are unsustainable. (Paras 45, 56)
(B) Evidence - Documentary proof - Internal correspondence - Unless supported by a formal agreement, internal emails or discussions regarding potential salary restoration do not create an enforceable contractual obligation against an organization. (Paras 54, 55)
Facts of the case:
The claimant sought recovery of alleged "deferred salary" and a compensation bonus from a former employer. The claimant argued that a salary reduction implemented years prior was a temporary deferment meant to be repaid. The employer produced a signed letter confirming the restructuring of the remuneration structure as an interim measure. The trial court decreed the suit in part for terminal dues but rejected the claim for the alleged deferred salary and bonus.
Findings of Court:
The claimant failed to provide evidence of any definitive contractual arrangement for the repayment of the reduced salary portion. The executed restructuring document and the absence of any contemporaneous written demand for repayment during the claimant's period of service undermined the validity of the claim.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the reduction in salary constituted an enforceable "deferred salary" subject to future repayment or a permanent "restructuring" of the remuneration package, and whether internal managerial correspondence created a binding obligation for the employer.
Ratio Decidendi: A party claiming a contractual right must substantiate the obligation through formal documentation. Internal managerial deliberations and ambiguous correspondence do not supersede signed letters of remuneration restructuring, particularly when the formal agreements lack provisions for future reconciliation or repayment.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing employment background and factual claims of salary deferment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 2. respondent's contention that salary changes were restructuring, not deferment. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 3. procedural history and trial court findings on salary claims. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 4. appellate arguments regarding evidentiary weight of correspondence. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 5. absence of written agreement precludes establishing debt obligation. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 6. lack of evidence warrants dismissal of salary arrears claims. (Para 58 , 59) |
| 7. confirmation of partial decree and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) has been preferred by the Appellant/Plaintiff, Praveen Malik, assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2024, whereby the Suit for Recovery of Rs.6,14,220/- filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff has been partly decreed by the learned District Judge, Delhi.
2. The Appellant/Plaintiff instituted CS DJ No.257/2016 seeking recovery of Rs.6,14,220/- along with interest.
3. Briefly stated, the case of the Appellant/Plaintiff was that he joined the services of the Respondent Company on 01.02.1996 and continued in employment till 14.04.2004. At the time of his resignation, he was serving as a Project Manager and was drawing a gross monthly salary of Rs.59,000/-.
4. During the financial year 2002-2003, the Respondent Company faced financial difficulties on account of substantial investments in infrastructure and delayed payments from its overseas affiliated entities. Consequently, in March 2002, the Defendant Company decided to defer a portion of the salaries payable to employees drawing salaries above Rs.12,000/- per month for the financial year 2002-2003 on a graded scale of 15%, 20%, 25% and 30% depending upon the salary range. The employees were also promised one month’s salary as bonus compensation, to offset the financial hardship occasioned by the deferment of salaries. The deferred salary was to be paid on 01.04.2003.
5. The deferment was implemented on a graded scale and since the Appellant/Plaintiff was drawing a gross salary of Rs.59,000/- per month, his salary was reduced by 25%, resulting in deferment of Rs.14,750/- per month from April 2002 till March 2003.
6. The Appellant/Plaintiff stated that during an Open House Meeting held on 09.08.2002, the Management announced restoration of salaries of certain employees belonging to the lowest salary group of Rs.12,001/- to Rs.20,000/- per month and assured that the cases of other employees would also be reviewed and their deferred salaries would be released.
7. As per the Appellant/Plaintiff, the said announcement had been made with the approval of the CEO of the Defendant Company, who had sent an e-mail dated 09.07.2002 to Mr. Raju Ahluwalia, with copies to Mr. Ajay Malik and Mr. Sunil Vadhera regarding the preponement of the decision to restore salaries to the earlier levels.
8. While the original salary of the Appellant/Plaintiff of Rs.59,000/- stood restored with effect from 01.04.2003, the management sought more time to pay the arrears of the deferred salary along with the compensation bonus. However, payment of the deferred salary and compensation bonus continued to be postponed despite repeated requests.
9. The Appellant/Plaintiff relied upon e-mails dated 17.12.2004 and 28.12.2004 addressed to the CEO of the Respondent Company seeking release of his pending dues. The CEO is stated to have responded that efforts would be made to ensure that funds were released at the earliest.
10. The Appellant/Plaintiff further sent an e-mail dated 21.02.2006 demanding payment of his due
