Can you claim a promised increment without email proof? What the law says about verbal assurances of higher increment

During times of appraisal, a lot of managers in the private sector often assure the diligent team members about giving higher raises to meet the employee’s expectations. But, this whole situation is dependent on how much faith the employee has in those promises and assurances.

Recently, an ET report highlighted a foreign employee who shared on social media that the HR of his company had verbally promised him a 21% increment. When the actual increment letter came, it turned out to be significantly less.

According to Anshul Prakash, Partner at Khaitan & Cothe Indian labour law and contract Act gives importance to such verbal assurances of higher increment but only if it is made under certain circumstances.


Also read: Employee discusses salary increase with co-worker, HR finds out and cuts the hike - Internet cries backstabbing

Prakash says: “Verbal assurances of a higher increment can, in theory, carry legal weight under Indian contract law, which recognises oral agreements. However, enforceability depends on whether the statement constituted a clear and binding promise, was made with authority, and was intended to create legal relations rather than being a tentative or aspirational remark.”

Prakash says that even if such a statement comes from senior leadership, courts usually require strong proof that it was a definitive commitment.

When asked if an employee recording of such verbal promises for a higher raise could be beneficial in a court, Prakash said that while such recordings may help prove that the statement was made, it doesn’t automatically make it legally enforceable. The context, wording, and surrounding circumstances remain critical.

Also read: Medical leave request turns into job termination after two days: Employee says got fired for lack of dedication

According to Prakash, an employee seeking to challenge a lesser increment despite strong performance would need evidence showing more than dissatisfaction. Some viable legal grounds to challenge lower increment usually involve breach of contract or policy, discrimination, retaliation, or arbitrariness contrary to applicable service rules.

Prakash says that some useful evidence may include appraisal records, written communications, policy documents, comparative salary data, and proof of inconsistent treatment.

Prakash says: “Without such material, courts and tribunals generally defer to employer discretion in compensation matters.”

Labour Codes do not mandate that increments must be uniform or tied to a specific formula

Prakash says that according to Indian employment law, employers usually have the freedom to determine the amount of raises, including granting different raises to different employees.

In the private sector, increments are typically discretionary unless expressly governed by an employment contract, collective agreement or standing orders.

Prakash says: “Indian labour laws, including the Labour Codes do not mandate that increments must be uniform or tied to a specific formula. Accordingly, an employer may decide to grant different increments to different employees or adjust increases to maintain internal parity across similarly placed employees.”

According to Prakash, such decisions are typically treated as part of managerial prerogative, provided they are not discriminatory, retaliatory for exercising a legal right, or in breach of contractual commitments.

Indian labour law says employer cannot reduce one employee’s salary to comply with equal pay requirements

According to Prakash, though giving increments is a discretion, it is subject to an important statutory limitation

Prakash says: “Employers are prohibited from discriminating on the ground of gender in matters relating to wages for the same work or work of a similar nature. The law also expressly states that an employer cannot reduce one employee’s wages merely to comply with equal pay requirements.”

Therefore, if differential increments result in gender-based disparity for substantially similar work, the decision could be challenged as unlawful.

If two employees perform similar roles but are paid unequally, the lower-paid employee would have the stronger legal claim

According to Prakash, pay adjustments made to remove disparity without reducing anyone’s wages are generally consistent with statutory objectives.

Prakash says: “In fact, if two employees perform substantially similar roles but are paid unequally without justification, the lower-paid employee would ordinarily have the stronger legal claim, not the higher-paid employee who expected a larger raise.”

Can you get a lower increment because of your salary discussion with colleagues?

According to Prakash, Indian law does not prohibit employees from discussing their salaries with colleagues.

Some employers include confidentiality clauses restricting disclosure of compensation, but their enforceability depends on reasonableness and proportionality.

Prakash says: “Blanket restrictions may be difficult to sustain if challenged, particularly if selectively enforced or used to penalise employees unfairly.”