Trending @Cognizant; This is going to be Our Strategy to fight for our promotions against RTO.

We will construct our argument on three pillars of employment law: Established Practice, Contractual Interpretation, and the Limits of Discretionary Power.

Pillar 1: The Doctrine of Established Practice & Legitimate Expectation

They will argue that your remote work was a temporary privilege. We will argue it was an established and accepted condition of service.

The Factual Basis: For 31 months, you have rendered your services from a remote location. Cognizant has accepted this service, supervised your work, managed you within their systems, and benefited from your labor under this model. This is not a privilege; it is a long-standing, established practice. The Legal Argument: The doctrine of "legitimate expectation" applies here. Through their consistent conduct over nearly three years, the company created a legitimate expectation that your remote work model was valid and acceptable. To now declare this model as non-compliant for the purpose of denying a promotion is a retrospective invalidation of your service conditions. We will argue that any change to such a fundamental condition requires a formal, bilateral modification of your employment terms, not a blanket "mandate" that ignores established practice. Pillar 2: The Principle of Contra Proferentem (Interpreting Ambiguity Against the Drafter)

They will try to enforce one part of their policy while ignoring another. We will use their own words to trap them.

The Factual Basis: Their promotion criteria state eligibility is based on "An average 2.5 days/ week in office or based on the work model". This "or" creates two distinct and valid paths to promotion eligibility. The Legal Argument: The legal principle of contra proferentem dictates that any ambiguity in a contract or policy must be interpreted against the party that drafted it. Cognizant drafted this policy. They created the ambiguity by including the "or" clause. Therefore, they cannot now insist on enforcing only the part that is convenient for them while ignoring the part that is convenient for you. Since your established work model was remote, you have fulfilled the condition as written. Their refusal to acknowledge this is an act of bad faith. We will demand they explain why one part of the clause is being enforced while the other is being ignored. Pillar 3: Exposing the Arbitrary Exercise of Discretionary Power

They will retreat to the "Business Unit's recommendation" clause as their final defense. We will argue this discretion is not a shield for arbitrary or punitive action.

The Factual Basis: You meet all stated, objective criteria for this promotion: Tenure: You exceed the 30-month requirement. Performance: We will operate on the fact that your 2024 YEA rating meets the "Rating 3 & above" standard. RTO: You meet the criteria via the "based on the work model" clause.

The Legal Argument: Discretionary power in an employment context is not absolute. It cannot be used to penalize an employee who has met all objective criteria. Withholding the BU's recommendation solely because of your physical location—despite you fulfilling the policy's written terms—is not discretion; it is punishment. It is an unfair labour practice as defined in the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifically Item 9: "failure to implement... agreement". We will put them on notice that we will contend their action is a malicious and colourable exercise of power intended to deny you your rightful career progression.