TANU PRIYA TIWARY

UR19109 (2019-21)
XAVIER SCHOOL OF RURAL MANAGEMENT

KALAKRITI: Resignation of an Executive

Case Study Situational Analysis

Actors

 Ms. Ruchi Sharma- Chief Executive of Kalakriti

 Mr. Ramesh Kumar- Development Executive
 State Head of Village Industries Department

Events

 Kalakriti as a social development organization was established in 1998 in Bastar

district of Chhatisgarh.
 Kalakriti applied for funding a cluster development project to Village Industries
Department.
 Mr. Kumar joined as Development Executive in Kalakriti
 State head of Village Industries Department raised some issues regarding Mr.
Kumar’s performance and trashed him.
 The government auditor observed and pointed out that the salary of the Development
Executive was higher than the limit provided in the program guidelines.
 Issuing of letter to decrease Mr. Kumar’s salary.
 Legal notice sent by Mr. Kumar to Ms. Ruchi Sharma

Case Facts

 After the hiring of the Development Executive (Mr. Kumar) at a higher salary than
the limit + compensation, led to a conflict between Kalakriti as an organisation and
Mr. Kumar.
 They reduced Mr. Kumar’s salary on the pointing out of a government auditor and
also because the State Head of Village Industries had pointed out that the agenda of
the meeting was not circulated in advance, comparative statement of quotations was
not made available.
 The minutes of the meeting drafted by Mr. Kumar was not up to the mark.
  A monthly report prepared by him was also trashed by the State Head of Village
Industries Department which could not be reason enough to decrease his salary.
 Mr. Kumar was prompt and regular in field visits and reporting.
 There was communication gap between Ms. Ruchi Sharma and Mr. Kumar due to
which there was a huge miscommunication about the reducing of salary done by
whom and why.
 Mr. Kumar took matters into his hands after he got paid less for three months
continuously demanding the differential amount be paid to him as that was what was
agreed upon during the hiring process.
 It was not possible for Ms. Sharma to pay him the differential amount as she was
acting under the instructions of the State head of VID.
 Representative of TA advises Ms. Sharma to pay Mr. Kumar the amount as the cost of
legal proceedings would be pretty high.
 There was an administrative lapse in the whole process where there was no contract
signed which would have been easier to solve this issue.

Decision Problem

 The problem here lies in the procedure Ms. Ruchi Sharma and the State Head of
Village Industries Department followed to reduce the salary of Mr. Kumar
(Development Executive).
 There was procedural lapse in the system.
 There was a mismatch of expectations regarding the work and salary to be paid from
the side of both the parties.

Objective

 The objective lies in the well being of the artisans which is the primary objective of
Kalakriti.
 To maintain the reputation of Kalakriti as an organisation in the society and
government circle.
 Proper allocation of finances to the project and the employees working.
 The satisfaction of employees working in Kalakriti.

Solution

 To settle the dispute by paying the differential amount to Mr. Kumar

 To contest in the court against Mr. Kumar
 To rehire Mr. Kumar and provide him Rs. 15000 from Kalakriti and the rest
amount by giving him responsibility of other additional projects. (Best solution)