Bengaluru techie rejects Rs 20 lakh hike despite bigger role, here’s what made him say no

A 31-year-old software developer in Bengaluru has reportedly turned down a Rs 20 lakh annual pay increase, despite having the opportunity to raise his salary from Rs 45 lakh to more than Rs 65 lakh. Rohan Dhawan, founder of UAbility, shared the experience of his friend on LinkedIn, saying the decision was driven by the personal demands attached to the promotion rather than the money itself.

The proposed role would have brought a larger team, a higher designation and greater visibility among recruiters. But Dhawan said the offer also meant four nights a week of calls with a US-based team, unavoidable travel, responsibility for almost twice as many people and weekends that could be difficult to keep free.

Also Read: IIT Madras builds Rs 17,000 standing wheelchair, 75x cheaper than commercial models

The promotion came with a very different routine

Dhawan said his friend’s father struggled to understand why anyone would reject such a substantial increase in earnings.

After learning that his son had declined the offer, his father called and said, “₹20 lakh extra mil raha hai. Problem kya hai? Aaj kal log 10% hike ke liye job badal lete hain.”

According to Dhawan, the concern was not the amount mentioned in the offer letter, but the commitments that came with accepting it.

The new position would require the developer to regularly attend late-night calls with the US team. He would also have to travel when required and oversee a substantially larger team, increasing the amount of time devoted to meetings and coordination.

Family plans changed the equation

The developer and his wife are planning to have a child next year, while he currently maintains a demanding personal routine outside work.

Dhawan said his friend works out five mornings a week and has dinner with his parents every Wednesday. The possibility of losing that regular time formed part of his decision to reject the promotion.

The choice, therefore, was not simply between Rs 45 lakh and Rs 65 lakh. It involved deciding how much additional time and flexibility he was willing to trade for the higher income.

‘The extra lakhs stop coming out of the company’s pocket’

Dhawan argued that higher compensation does not always represent a straightforward financial gain once the demands of a bigger role are taken into account.

“People don't realise that past a certain salary, the extra lakhs stop coming out of the company's pocket and start coming out of yours,” he wrote.

In his view, the hidden cost can include evenings, weekends and personal commitments that become harder to protect as professional responsibilities grow.

The LinkedIn post framed the decision as a reminder that compensation packages usually capture earnings but not the effect that a job can have on a person’s time and relationships.

“Every offer letter tells you exactly what you'll be paid. None of them tell you what you'll be paying,” Dhawan wrote.

Also Read: 1,300-year-old Viking dress found in Denmark: Archaeologists uncover buried fragments offering rare clues to how Viking women dressed

Other professionals share similar decisions

The post resonated with users who said they had also rejected lucrative opportunities because of family responsibilities or the lifestyle attached to the role.

One person said they had declined an offer last February that would have provided an almost 50% increase in fixed pay and more than an 80% increase in total compensation. The user said they chose to remain with their existing team because they had welcomed a baby only a few months earlier.

“Not an easy decision but would have decided the same again and again,” the user wrote.

Another commenter said rejecting the promotion did not make the developer any less ambitious, arguing that people can have different priorities while still pursuing their careers.

A third user said they had passed on three similar offers and remained satisfied with the decision because it allowed them to spend regular time with their parents, wife and child.

Another commenter pointed to what they described as a double cost associated with such a move, writing that the additional earnings would be accompanied by losses in terms of time with loved ones.

“Good decision,” the user concluded.

One more person described the choice as bold but sensible, saying that not every decision in life needs to be based solely on money.