Personal correspondence

Give people the conditions behind the judgement we make

Chief Human Resources Officer India

I build people arrangements that distinguish an employee’s contribution from the conditions we gave them to work, learn and compete for the next role.

The eighteen records arrived as a performance issue. Selected workshop assignments had been late, and I approved the associated ratings in 2018 without giving enough attention to the conditions under which the work had been expected. Saira Temralkar’s operating review showed upstream material constraints in twelve cases. The remaining six required individual examination. A delayed output did not by itself establish what the employee had failed to do, and correcting one part of the account did not settle the rest.

A performance judgement or career opportunity should reflect what the person could actually influence and access. I ask whether we supplied the material, the learning time and the notice before deciding what someone’s response tells us about them.

People function: 18 colleagues; Three leads supporting workshop and component teams
Annual function expense: ₹3.6 crore; CHRO remit; technical operating decisions separately owned
People-services career: 30 years; Employee-record support through workshop people leadership

A record of service

2021-04 — present: Chief Human Resources OfficerNerlashi Rail Interiors
2016-04 — 2021-03: Head of PeopleNerlashi Rail Interiors
2011-04 — 2016-03: Lead People PartnerNerlashi Rail Interiors
2003-04 — 2011-03: Lead People AdviserTarnelvi People Services
1996-06 — 2003-03: People Services AssistantTarnelvi People Services

Read the full profile ↗

Give people the conditions behind the judgement we make

In 2018 I approved lateness ratings for eighteen selected employee records without adequately examining the upstream material constraints. Twelve of those cases involved material availability outside the individual’s control. The remaining six still required individual review. We spent ₹31 lakh over eight weeks correcting the twelve accounts and reopening the six unresolved cases. I could not infer poor performance from an output delay alone, and I could not declare every employee cleared simply because part of the review had been wrong.

I am Preeti Darnelvi, chief human resources officer of Nerlashi Rail Interiors in Jodhpur. Our 312 colleagues make interior components and provide workshop refurbishment services, with ₹104 crore FY 2025–26 revenue. I lead eighteen HR colleagues through three leads. Akshay is our chief executive, and Saira leads operations. Technical owners retain standards and task clearance; my function should make the people account describe the conditions under which someone was asked to contribute.

The later work concerns learning and access to opportunity. Eight mentors supported twenty-four learners in a programme with 216 planned paid learning hours. We delivered 192 and rescheduled 24 rather than record them as completed. An internal-vacancy review found that twelve of thirty-two colleagues examined had not received the notice. We reopened the opportunity and confirmed receipt across that selected group without treating receipt as an application or a hiring outcome. My executive role carries neither a personal ownership interest nor a statutory seat. A potential first outside contribution would require further preparation, specific assessment and a workable twenty-two-day annual commitment. I would bring experience of asking whether the organisation supplied the conditions it later assumes when judging a person’s performance, learning or ambition.

Delay was not automatically an individual performance finding

Twelve of eighteen reviewed records involved upstream material constraints; six remained open for individual examination after the correction.

Learning time remained real work in the programme account

Eight mentors and twenty-four learners had 216 planned paid hours; 192 were delivered and 24 explicitly rescheduled.

An internal vacancy reached the people in the selected review

The notice was reopened after twelve of thirty-two colleagues had missed it; confirmed receipt did not imply application or appointment.

A defined people-function remit

Three leads coordinate eighteen HR colleagues within ₹3.6 crore annual function expense; technical clearance remains with qualified operating owners.

Current focus

Workshop careers with fair context, learning time and opportunity access

Conversations I welcome

People leadership and preparation for a first outside-board contribution

The leadership record

Trusted with consequential decisions.

Formation

Bachelor of Arts in Social WorkPervani College of Social Studies · 1996

Preeti reopened the vacancy timetable when the notice had not reached part of the reviewed group. She preserved the selection standard while correcting the assumption that everyone had seen the opportunity.

Akshay MelvarniChief Executive, Nerlashi Rail Interiors; fictional colleague

The full record ↗

Contact

People leadership and preparation for a first outside-board contribution

Board appointments
Executive opportunities

Write to Preeti Contact page