Re: [Fwd: Credit]

Subject: Re: [Fwd: Credit]

From: "N. Suresh (PM&AS)" <suresh.n@easunreyrolle.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 16:49:52 +0530
To: deepak <deepak@easunreyrolle.com>
CC: Jaganmohan <jaganmohan@easunreyrolle.net>, George Punnoose <gpunnoose@easunreyrolle.com>

Thanks a lot Mr. Deepak for your reply and for the effort you have made to address atleast some part of my concerns
and I am absolutely convinced about the decision with respect to the Business Group. I still have a lot of questions on
the objectivity of the exercise as a whole, but I rest here because too much of energy is being spent on this because I
could not help comparing the pay-outs to personnel atleast related functions.

Thanks for all the encouraging words. I would try my level best to ensure that these things do not affect my
performance.

Warm regards
N. Suresh

deepak wrote:

Dear Suresh,

My views and the reply on the points raised by you is as follows:

I do fully agree with all the points that you have mentioned regarding your performance in 2008-09. In fact, the
interest you have shown in Development work and the initiative you have taken to develop the products like
PLCC Meters, Dual register concept, redesigning Flush mount meters, streamlining the architecture &
documentation of AMR solutions etc is highly appreciable. Based on your such performance it was decided by
the management to use your expertise in R&D to develop metering products which are very long due and had
fully impacted the business performance.

Now I come to the performance pay for the year 2008-09, you are fully aware of the performance of MBG( Lets
us not get in to the reasons for this bad performance at this stage, which is very well known to all of us). Based
on the performance and keeping in view the decision taken by the Top Management it was decided to slot MBG
in the 30% performance group.

As a business head it is my duty and moral responsibility to reward each and every employee of my department
to the extent of their direct & indirect contribution. I strongly believe in team work and accordingly the alloted
30% has been distributed to the entire team. In this process, no doubt that some of the best contributors have not
got more as the base (absolute value of PP to the extent of 30% that was alloted) itself was very small. Here, I do
not want to compare or comment on the % PP allotment to any other groups and their disbursement decisions.

I would like to re iterate here that you performance has been very good in the year 2008-09 and I sincerely hope
that you would continue to do so in 2009-10 in your new assignment.

Regards
Deepak
MBG

N. Suresh (PM&AS) wrote:

Can I have reply on this please? We need to close this one way or the other. Apparently the calculations
indicated by Mr Deepak and the way it was explained by Mr Jagan seem to be at great variance.

During March '09 when I had a frank and honest discussions with Mr. GP, I was assured that everything

1 of 4 5/21/2009 11:45 AM
Re: [Fwd: Credit]

would be addressed and all kinds of anamolies and imbalances including the CTC and Fitment would be
taken care. While I agree it is very unprofessional to take names and make a comparison of the contributions
over the previous year (I have given a few examples during our personal discussions just to drive home the
point as why I was justified in feeling that way), I could not help do it because I have been repeatedly losing
again and again and so early after assurances from the highest quarter.

To lend an objectivity to the whole exercise let me give you a brief on my performance/achievements
vis-a-vis the goals and KRAs agreed. If this is below par compared to the % of PP given to examples I had
indicated and deserves only 30%, please communicate the same to me and I would accept them with all
humility.

1) PLCC range of products:

The whole range of products was launched (as committed during the goal setting) during the year for
which I had assumed complete responsibility on the technical front. The only sales that happened
during the last year on the product was Dual Source PLCC based meters which was a brand
new addition to our product range. From the requirement to customer approval the turn around
time was just 3 days (which included a Sunday in between). With absolutely no developmental
support or investment, it was turned out single handedly in this short period from concept to
customer approval. I am sure you would agree that this was no mean achievement considering that
the alternate solution based on PLC (programmable logic controller) would have made our solution
so expensive that we would have been priced out (there was no alternate product in terms of meter
too). Apart from adding a unique and niche product into the portfolio for all our future business, we
were able to do some new business on products.

BEST pilot lot meters:

Despite the handicap of inexperienced operations support and the delays thereof - skipped
production operations resulting in non-working meters etc, we were able to turn out the whole lot
and even address the rectification on site. Please note that the problems were reported only on 3
phase meters (the only variant were work was carried out internally). We had since fine tuned
production systems to prevent these kinds of problems in future.

Daman and Other Installations:

Ensured by co-ordination with FXXC and also with personal knowledge that requisite information
were available and projects that were pending due to lack of information and application software
were closed.

2) HT Flush Mount Meters:

Long pending issues and failures in the field were closed successfully as committed. Performa
certificates from Customers were also received. All the issues that were pending for more than 3.5
years were closed with resources made available and well ahead of committed time, completed
deployed after due field validation since Oct 2008 (which originally was March 2009). Today we
have a much better product with whole lot of new features and USPs making this an attractive
proposition in the market. Also, we have achieved a cost reduction of close to Rs. 1000/- with t
improved design.

Constraints that had to be overcome: Resource requirements dependency indicated was additi
availability of 2 nos JM2 grade. Instead, 2 existing resources were moved to Application and 1
Trainee was provided. We had no base documentation or source codes to work on (atleast
officially). Also due to issues on the existing versions, we redesigned the whole firmware.

We had no Development tools whatsoever. We had to make do with a production board, simulate
and test the software.

2 of 4 5/21/2009 11:45 AM
Re: [Fwd: Credit]

3) Software Support:
I volunteered to take up this responsibility though not part of my original KRA or Goals. I have
worked single-handedly to establish some systematic approach to Software Engineering and the
entire gamut of professional documentation were personally prepared for the PSEB project and
performed the System Analyst function, easily saving 20L p.a. for the company (refer the
consultancy fees quoted by suppliers for this role).

In a short period of 3 months, the whole system for PSEB and TPCL was reconfigured and rebuilt to
meet customer requirements and ensured that it is in SAT stage. Please note that this required work
hours which were close to 14-16 hours on a daily basis.

Kaisons, Temple Tower, Vatika and building sector software requirement specifications were
framed and is pending implementation.

4) Value Enhancing goals:

Have conducted training sessions for competency enhancements of the team + other technical staff
of the company (organized by HR). Atleast the feedback I received was positive and in terms of
value add, the products designed subsequently was critically reviewed and tested for EMI/EMC
Similarly, another set of 2 members are geared up to take on further developments on PLCC meters.
Our Software support team were trained on requirement specifications, multi-tier application design
and test case developments.

5) MIOS Technical Committee:

Along with Mr. Deepak and Prakruthi, we have ensured that ER has a significant role in the
proceedings. ER currently is one of the most respected committee members and our opinions are
taken very seriously, proven by the fact that we are rarely even mentioned in the minutes of
proceedings. Our influence has gone to the extent of even causing amendments to the standards.

Please note Items 3, 4 (part of the same) and 5 were not part of my original KRAs for the year. I hope the
issues that I have highlighted is addressed in right earnest and I get to hear something on this. Also, let me
also highlight the fact it is primarily not related to Money (though what I lost is quite high and a lot of other
commitments were planned with this) but about my perception of fairness in this exercise. Please help me
dispel these thoughts and contribute constructively to the organization - it hurts me to write these mails
which is being required of late with unfailing regularity.

With warm regards

Suresh

N. Suresh (PM&AS) wrote:

Dear Deepak/Jagan

I am unable to place this calculation. And from Rs. 1.0 L (@ 100%) attributed to my CTC, only 31k
does not seem to fit into scheme of things. Even at 50% which is what I guess was the percentage
(going by a mail I recd from Jagan) at which this was arrived at, this calculation does not seem to fit in.

I would like to request a very urgent meeting on this issue please. As was being pointed out repeatedly,

3 of 4 5/21/2009 11:45 AM
Re: [Fwd: Credit]

I lost out on an appropriate fitment in the first place, a review last year since it was supposedly too early
and now substantially on even the committed CTC.

Rgds
Suresh

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:Credit
Date:Mon, 11 May 2009 19:42:31 +0530
From:Bala <j.bala@easunreyrolle.com>
To:N.Suresh-PM&AS (Metering Solutions) <suresh.n@easunreyrolle.com>

Mr.Suresh,

Today we have credited to your ICICI account the following sum towards
the perf. pay for the year 2008-09:

Gross amount - 31000.00

TDS NIL
Net amount - 31000.00

Please confirm receipt.

Rgds
Bala

4 of 4 5/21/2009 11:45 AM