I had rewarded the absence before examining the route

I grew up in Agartala and studied sociology because I was interested in how formal arrangements were experienced by the people expected to live within them. Personnel management gave that interest a workplace setting. I completed my undergraduate degree in May 1996 and a full-time master's degree in May 1998, both at the fictional Ruqvathi College of Social Studies. I began work the following month. The twenty-eight years since then have not taught me that every employee concern has one explanation. They have taught me to examine the conditions of the process before interpreting the count it produces.

My first employer was Dezqavri Resource Services, an invented regional industrial-services business with ninety-two employees and ₹9.6 crore FY 1999 revenue. As an employee-case officer, I worked under the people manager and had neither staff nor spending responsibility. I helped record requests, clarify the question being raised and follow the response. A complete form could still leave a person without a usable answer. I learned to distinguish administrative closure from a resolution the employee understood, while recognising that understanding an answer did not necessarily mean agreeing with it.

In January 2004 I became regional people manager. Eight colleagues worked within an ₹82 lakh annual administration budget; the company then had 240 employees and ₹38 crore FY 2005 revenue. The role brought together employees whose work and travel did not fit neatly around a central office. I had to explain consistent principles while allowing the actual circumstances to be heard. I also learned that practical access to a process matters: a person can formally be entitled to raise a question while finding that the route is difficult to use during the working day.

I moved to Nerqavmi in September 2010 as head of site employment. Its 176 employees worked in industrial resource and organic-residue services; the current biogas portfolio should not be read back into that period. I led eleven people colleagues and carried ₹1.2 crore annual administration and development expenditure. Working with site managers made the relationship between central policy and local judgement more immediate. The people function needed enough consistency to be fair and enough knowledge of the work to avoid treating every exception as a failure to follow a standard form.

The March 2017 appointment as director of people operations broadened that responsibility to fifteen colleagues and ₹2.2 crore annual administration and development expenditure. The title was functional, with no statutory directorship. I wanted site people-management reviews to be clear enough for managers to act on them. That preference contributed to my 2019 mistake: I supported a score that rewarded the absence of formal employee concerns. Nirmal questioned whether the score measured successful resolution or made an unresolved issue less welcome in the record. I gave too much weight to the attractive simplicity of the comparison.

The later listening exercise involved thirty-six conversations and identified nineteen previously unrecorded concerns raised by twelve employees. Those were concerns to examine, not nineteen established findings of misconduct. The distinction mattered, but it did not rescue the score I had endorsed. We removed the zero-count reward from eleven managers' reviews and funded a ₹26 lakh programme of listening, response and follow-up. The following quarter recorded twenty-seven concerns, with eighteen responses provided and nine still open at the review point. I did not describe the higher number as a deterioration or the responses as proof that every issue had been resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

I became CHRO in December 2021 and now report to CEO Iqbal Tezqavthi. The company has 620 employees, fourteen client-owned biogas plants under service arrangements and ₹148 crore FY 2026 fee revenue. My twenty-one colleagues work through four leads. The ₹3.1 crore administration and development budget excludes the enterprise employee-cost account of ₹84 crore, which includes our team's pay. Technical authorisation, process safety and client-asset decisions remain with their responsible owners. My remit is the employment arrangement and the quality of the people recommendation, not a claim to approve plant operations.

The later cases extend the question raised by that earlier score. We examined whether employees had to finance company travel before reimbursement, whether internal promotion evidence matched the actual role, and whether urgent hiring had created pay comparisons the business needed to explain. We also introduced a more deliberate account of family relationships in local recruitment, without treating a disclosed connection as proof of wrongdoing. Each choice had an administrative or financial cost. None allows me to claim that every employee's experience improved, and the record retains the matters that required further review.

I work in English, Bengali, Hindi and conversational Assamese. I have no equity holding and no statutory directorship. A possible first outside role would require preparation, employer consent where applicable and a review of actual relationships. I have provisionally identified twenty days a year, including preparation and exceptional demands, but would test that against the real appointment. My contribution would be to ask how a workforce arrangement operates for the people affected and what evidence supports management's account. I would need to learn another company's circumstances before assuming that my experience supplies its answer.