Former Microsoft Employee Starts 30-Day Challenge After Firing Before Diwali

Many employees contact their supervisors via WhatsApp to request leave. Upon receiving an 'OK' reply from the manager, they assume the leave has been approved. However, the question arises: can a simple 'OK' on WhatsApp be considered official leave permission? This issue was raised in connection with the case of a railway employee.

The employee claimed that his senior supervisor had given consent for an additional two-day leave through WhatsApp. Nevertheless, when he returned from vacation, he was suspended from work. He was later also transferred to another position. The employee challenged this decision, but the tribunal rejected his petition.

The tribunal ruled that an 'OK' received on WhatsApp is not, by itself, irrefutable proof that the leave was officially approved.

This incident involves Priya Ranjan Kumar, an employee of the North Central Railway who worked in Prayagraj. According to the employee, he took three days of leave from July 14 to July 16, 2025, to visit his native village. He then messaged his senior supervisor on WhatsApp to extend the leave for July 17 and 18. The employee claimed that the supervisor replied 'OK', which he interpreted as permission for the extra two days off. He also informed another supervisor about this over the phone. However, the railway administration stated that the responsibility for approving the leave during that period lay with another employee. According to the railway, following established procedures was necessary for official leave approval.

The employee stated that when he returned to work on July 21, 2025, he was suspended. Four days later, on July 25, he was transferred from Prayagraj to Fatehpur. Then, on July 31, he was served with a charge sheet related to disciplinary action. The employee appealed his transfer, arguing that the actions against him and the transfer were due to the leave dispute. On the other hand, the railway explained the transfer by stating that a new reception and booking office was being developed at the Fatehpur railway station, and staff were required to work there. The railway cited this administrative necessity as the reason for the transfer.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Allahabad stated during the hearing that an 'OK' received on WhatsApp is not sufficient evidence that the competent authority approved the leave. A competent authority is an employee authorized to approve leave according to the rules. The railway side argued that the relevant employee was undergoing training at the time, and another employee with approval authority was handling the department's affairs. The railway also noted that the established official procedure for obtaining leave was not followed.

After considering the railway's arguments, the tribunal concluded that the employee could not prove solely based on the WhatsApp 'OK' that his extended leave had been officially approved.

The employee also claimed that his transfer was not due to routine administrative necessity but was intended as retaliation. However, the railway informed the tribunal that staff were needed for the new booking office in Fatehpur, and the transfer was made for this specific reason. The tribunal accepted this argument from the railway because no convincing evidence was presented that the purpose of the transfer was to punish the employee. Subsequently, the tribunal dismissed the employee's petition on October 7, 2026, upholding the transfer decision.

This case is important for employees who rely solely on WhatsApp messages when extending or obtaining leave approval. Even if a manager replies 'OK', it does not always signify official leave approval, especially if the responding employee lacks the authority to grant leave. Therefore, before extending leave, it is crucial to ensure that the permission is granted by the correct person and that established office procedures are followed. It is also advisable to check approval records in official systems such as the HMRS portal.

Reasons for layoffs in companies are not always solely linked to financial difficulties or business downturns. Currently, the evaluation of employees' work, productivity, and results also plays a significant role in decisions regarding staff reductions. Qualcomm has developed a plan to reduce its global workforce after conducting an annual personnel assessment. This move once again raises the question of whether corporations use employee performance metrics as a basis for dismissals.

Following the annual review of its employees, Qualcomm announced its intention to cut jobs worldwide. In a message addressed to employees, CEO Cristiano Amon stated that the goal of this initiative is to foster a strong culture of performance and improve areas where the company is not meeting expected results. Employees can expect notification of layoffs in November. The company has not yet disclosed the exact number of employees whose positions will be affected. Decisions on layoffs will take into account both business needs and organizational priorities, as well as the skills and specialization of the personnel.

Typically, companies reduce staff in response to the need to lower costs, changes in business, or the disappearance of a need for a particular department. This can be called traditional downsizing. In such cases, an employee's dismissal may occur due to a change in their role or department, rather than due to their personal performance. In contrast, when downsizing is based on performance, the employee's work evaluation, effectiveness, ability to meet goals, and overall level of productivity can be used as a criterion. The company has the right to decide who to retain and who to offer alternative employment.

However, both types of reductions can happen simultaneously. For example, if a company is reducing staff to cut costs, it may also conduct performance and qualification assessments of these employees in parallel.

There is a significant difference between these approaches: in traditional downsizing, the position or department itself may disappear. Conversely, in performance-based downsizing, the position may remain, but the company may decide to replace the employee currently holding that position. For instance, if a department continues to function, but management believes that the performance of some employees does not meet established expectations, it may consider replacing those individuals with other workers.

It is important to note that a reference to performance by the company does not mean that the laid-off employee had poor results. Organizational needs and other business reasons may also underlie the reduction.

Processes such as employee performance reviews, efficiency improvement plans, and personnel ratings have been used by companies for a long time. They help assess employee work and identify areas needing improvement. Since companies are now mentioning performance and effectiveness when explaining layoff reasons, it becomes critically important to understand whether an employee is leaving due to the elimination of their role or if their termination is based on an evaluation of their work. However, the processes and reasons for layoffs differ in each company.

If the retention of a job is tied to the results of a performance evaluation, it increases the significance of annual appraisals and set goals for employees. In this case, employees naturally raise questions about the standards by which their work is evaluated. It is also important that companies provide employees with clear feedback on their results and apply uniform standards across all teams. Managers' opinions, changing work needs, and company priorities can also influence performance evaluations.

Overall, economic downturn or cost reduction cannot be the sole reason for layoffs. In some cases, the evaluation of employee skills and performance also becomes part of the decision-making process. Therefore, it is crucial for employees to understand what the company expects from them and on what basis their work is being assessed.

Job searching is a complex process for young people, involving sending resumes, networking via LinkedIn, or trying to secure interviews through referrals. However, when numerous applications yield no response, the job search can become exhausting. One graduate from a biotechnology faculty in Bangalore presented an offer that attracted public attention.

He stated that if anyone could help him find a job, he would pay them his entire first month's salary. This young man, who holds a bachelor's degree in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning (AI-ML), posted his appeal on the r/bangalorejob community on Reddit. He requested assistance in securing a position in software engineering or AI-ML and offered his full first month's salary as compensation for a successful referral.

In his post, the graduate also mentioned that he has developed projects using technologies such as PyTorch, FastAPI, and RAG pipelines, but he is having difficulty getting interviews at companies.

The graduate noted in his message that many entry-level vacancies require two to three years of experience. This presents a serious problem for recent graduates. Furthermore, he mentioned difficulties related to the application process. According to him, companies often use Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) to filter and manage applications, which hinders a candidate's progression in the hiring process after submitting an application.

This young man's offer sparked mixed reactions among Reddit users. Some questioned the advisability of offering the first salary in exchange for a job referral. Others discussed the challenges faced by newcomers. The young man explained that he made this offer to draw attention to his post, as many requests for help do not receive adequate attention. He emphasized that it was not a bribe, but a way to gain visibility for his publication.

Some users pointed out that some companies already offer bonuses to employees for successful referrals. At the same time, others offered the young man their help in finding employment opportunities.

The situation goes beyond the personal job search story of one young man; it highlights the difficulties faced by many new graduates. Even with a degree and technical skills, landing the first job is not easy, especially when entry-level positions demand experience. Nevertheless, the offer to pay the first salary does not guarantee employment; it is an attempt by the candidate to gain support, which initiated the online discussion.