Learning to ask what the employment rule is for

The housing application looked complete until our rule made it irrelevant. The colleague had explained why living closer to work mattered. Our process instead asked whether the household fitted a particular family and primary-earner description. I had approved that condition because it appeared to make a difficult allocation consistent. When nineteen of forty-eight applications were excluded before a needs review, I could see the effect of the simplification I had supported. The rule made the decision easier for the office by making some employees' circumstances disappear from the decision.

I grew up in Aizawl and completed social studies at the fictional Qerzami College of Social Studies in June 1996. In July I joined Povzeli Workplace Services as an employment-services coordinator. The firm had seventy-two employees and ₹ 8.2 crore revenue for FY ending March 1997. I worked in a six-person group without direct reports or a spending delegation. My early work concerned joining arrangements, employment records and enquiries from people trying to understand what an offer meant in practice. I learned that an apparently clear form could contain a question that the person completing it understood very differently from its author.

The people-services manager appointment came in June 2002. Povzeli employed 158 people and recorded ₹ 24 crore revenue for FY ending March 2003. Nine colleagues worked through two leads within ₹ 42 lakh annual function expense. We supported managers and employees across workplace assignments. I began to distinguish a useful common process from a common assumption about everyone's circumstances. A rule could be administered accurately and still fail to address the purpose for which it had been created. That did not mean every employee request could be granted. It meant a refusal should concern the actual request and the company's responsibility.

Nevzemi appointed me as an estate people partner in September 2008. It employed 215 people and reported ₹ 51 crore revenue for FY ending March 2009. Ten HR colleagues worked through two leads within ₹ 91 lakh annual function expense. Property operations gave the work a physical dimension. An employment commitment could depend on a building, transport arrangement or another owner's permission. The people team could organise a conversation and fund a proposal, but it could not make a physical change safe or authorised simply by describing it as inclusive. I learned to bring the relevant specialists into the discussion without allowing their different responsibilities to become a reason for nobody to own the employee's question.

In July 2015 I became head of people. Nevzemi had 430 direct employees and ₹ 128 crore revenue for FY ending March 2016. Eighteen HR colleagues worked through three leads with ₹ 2.8 crore annual expense. I wanted a consistent employment offer across the estates. Some of the resulting policies were useful; others carried the head office's assumptions into places where they did not fit. The housing condition was one of those designs. The later consultation-forum review revealed another: I had counted the existence of a representative without examining who had chosen that person.

My CHRO appointment began in January 2022. I now report to Rahil Zemvori and lead twenty-six colleagues through four leads. Meera Velqomi remains responsible for estate operations. Our company owns six estates and manages four for separate owners, with 680 direct employees and ₹ 216 crore FY26 revenue. Tenant businesses and their workforces are outside those figures. The family vehicle owns 49%, the employee-managed holding vehicle 31% and the private investor 20%; I have no holding. My ₹ 4.7 crore FY2026–27 function expense and the separate ₹ 1.6 crore people programme do not represent the company's entire employee or property cost.

The housing correction cost ₹ 11 lakh alongside a ₹ 54 lakh annual lease commitment. Twenty-two people accepted offers and eighteen remained waiting after forty completed reviews. We did not displace existing residents to make the new account look complete. The access programme required ₹ 84 lakh of approved work and support, with seven physical adaptations, six working arrangements and five unresolved requests. A completed conversation was not counted as a completed adjustment. Where another estate owner controlled a decision, we kept our responsibility to find a workable response visible instead of treating the ownership boundary as the end of the matter.

The consultation review cost ₹ 14 lakh. Four forums had employee-selected representatives; two had manager nominees. Reopening those two selections changed the basis on which all six forums could claim to hear colleagues. It did not turn them into statutory bodies or replace recognised representation arrangements. The dress review cost ₹ 19 lakh and dealt with thirty-seven requests: twenty-four approved, nine awaiting role-specific technical assessment and four awaiting clarification from the employee. A request still under examination was neither an approval nor a refusal.

I hold no statutory directorship and have not yet registered for the IICA databank in this fictional account. Twenty-two days is a provisional allowance for a possible external contribution after preparation, employer consent and a review of the actual commitment. My professional languages are Mizo, English and Hindi. I would bring practical experience of the gap between an employment offer and the conditions needed to use it. I would also bring a willingness to name the assumption I helped introduce, because a people leader's good intention does not make the resulting rule a good one.

Open to Board appointments

Languages / Mizo · English · Hindi