* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 13^th JANUARY, 2026

IN THE MATTER OF:

+ ARB.P. 1677/2025

DEEPALI KHANNA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Samiron Borkataky and Ms.

Madhupreeta Nayak, Advocates

versus

GLOBAL ALLIANCE FOR IMPROVED NUTRITION GAIN THROUGH ITS LIAISON OFFICE, INDIA .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Surya Kapoor, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

JUDGMENT

1. This Petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes which have arisen between the parties under the

Employment Contract dated 15.03.2017.

2. It is stated that the Petitioner herein joined the Respondent on 15.03.2017 as a Finance and Accounts Officer under a renewable Employment Contract. It is stated that over the years, her contract was periodically renewed through addendums dated 07.02.2019, 05.03.2020, 28.05.2021, 01.06.2022, and 30.06.2023, and she rose to the position of Finance and Administration Manager, handling significant financial responsibilities and supervising a substantial portion of the India office workforce. It is stated that on 04.03.2024/.05.03.2024, the Petitioner‟s Reporting Manager (RM) requested her credentials and documents for

processing her promotion, confirming that she was eligible for advancement. It is stated that in compliance with the requirements, the Petitioner completed a Professional Development Plan (PDP) and received a certificate of completion on 25.03.2024, indicating her qualification for promotion. It is stated that on 02.04.2024, the RM communicated that the Petitioner‟s promotion would be submitted to the Performance Review Committee, indicating that the promotion process had progressed substantially. It is stated that on the same date, the Respondent herein circulated a humane layoff and redundancy policy prescribing notice periods, severance benefits, and transition support for affected employees. It is stated that around the third week of April 2024, the Petitioner informed the RM and another senior member of the Respondent Organisation about her pregnancy during a Microsoft Teams call. Subsequently, on 06.05.2024, the RM raised concerns regarding the Petitioner‟s leave history via email. It is stated that on 09.05.2024, the RM unilaterally withdrew the Petitioner‟s promotion in a meeting, without prior discussion or formal justification. It is stated that the Petitioner sought clarification and reconsideration by email dated 14.05.2024, but received no response. It is stated that on 20.05.2024, the Petitioner formally informed the Respondent/Organisation of her pregnancy and her intention to commence maternity leave from 29.07.2024. It is stated that the Respondent/Organisation issued a Maternity Leave Letter dated 27.05.2024, confirming maternity leave from 29.07.2024 to 12.02.2025. It is stated that the Petitioner remained on maternity leave 29.07.2024 to

21.02.2025.

3. It is stated that in November 2024, during the subsistence of Petitioner‟s employment, the Respondent engaged a finance and accounting consultant whose responsibilities overlapped with those of the Petitioner, despite claims of there being financial constraints in the Respondent. It is stated that in February 2025, shortly before re-joining, the Petitioner herein sent e-mails to the RM requesting for a phased re-entry and hybrid working arrangement. It is stated that the RM was unavailable to discuss the same, and the Petitioner was allegedly pressured to mark working hours as leave.

4. It is stated that on 11 March 2025, the Petitioner received a renewal addendum for extension of her employment contract from the Respondent‟s HR representative and she was asked to submit supporting documents. It is stated that the Petitioner duly executed and submitted the documents. However, the RM did not process or sign the renewal, and repeated reminders sent on 07.05.2025 and 08.05.2025 went unanswered.

5. It is stated that on