Contractual salary deduction for underperformance upheld absent arbitrariness or breach of terms.

The appellant, a contractual Office Assistant, challenged a 5% salary deduction imposed after his performance for 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020 was assessed as unsatisfactory.

He contended that the deduction was imposed without a hearing or a further performance review after his three-month provisional extension, and without a specific order authorising it.

The respondents maintained that the deduction was a one-time administrative measure for underperformance and that the appellant later received salary appraisals.

After his representation was rejected, the Single Judge dismissed his writ petition; the appellant appealed.

The Board resolution authorised a 5% salary reduction for underperforming employees or employees granted provisional extensions, or other appropriate action by the ED/CEO.

Clause 3 of the agreement provided for salary as compensation for services rendered and an annual salary review by the employer.

Read together, these provisions permitted management to assess performance and take appropriate action under the applicable contractual terms.

The Court found that the appellant’s appraisal for the relevant period was unsatisfactory and that he had received a three-month provisional extension to improve, with a further decision to follow a review.

It considered the Board resolution and the agreement sufficient to permit management action based on performance.

The appellant’s later salary appraisals did not, by themselves, establish that the earlier deduction was illegal.

As the record disclosed no material showing arbitrariness, discrimination, or breach of contract, the Court found no basis to interfere with the Single Judge’s decision.

The writ appeal was dismissed, leaving the Single Judge’s order undisturbed.