₹5 lakh salary to ₹14 lakh package: Why this candidate rejected a 50% hike and waited for the right offer
A candidate earning ₹5 lakh rejected a ₹7.5 lakh offer after questioning whether it matched his experience. Months later, another company offered him ₹14 lakh, raising questions about salary-based hiring.
- Jun 25, 2026,
- Updated Jun 25, 2026 7:10 AM IST
A job offer that appeared attractive because of a 50% salary hike turned into a reminder that compensation is not always about percentages.
A candidate earning ₹5 lakh per annum rejected an offer of ₹7.5 lakh after feeling it did not match his experience and market value. Months later, another company evaluated his skills differently and offered him ₹14 lakh per annum — more than double the earlier proposal.
Don't Miss:Rs 17,000 salary for MD, 40% stock mismatch: ED's explosive findings after raids on Rajesh Exports
The incident was shared by Delhi-based co-founder Kanika Jain on social media, where she used the example to question a common hiring practice: linking a candidate’s future salary too closely to their previous pay.
When a 50% hike did not feel enough
According to Jain, the conversation started after a recruiter pointed out that the candidate’s existing compensation was ₹5 lakh per annum. Based on that figure, the company offered ₹7.5 lakh per annum, describing it as a significant 50% increase.
The candidate, however, did not accept the reasoning. He felt the offer did not reflect his four years of experience and pointed out that the same company was reportedly offering around ₹12 lakh per annum to other candidates applying for the same role.
The recruiter maintained that there was no room for further negotiation and said the package was in line with market standards.
Candidate chose to wait for the right opportunity
Instead of accepting the offer, the candidate decided to walk away. He thanked the company for the opportunity but made it clear that he would not consider anything below ₹10 lakh per annum.
With both sides unable to reach an agreement, the candidate continued his search.
Later, another organisation assessed him based on his skills and experience rather than his previous salary. Despite his background in a service-based company, the new employer recognised his capabilities and offered him ₹14 lakh per annum.
For Jain, the difference between the two offers showed how salary history can sometimes influence hiring decisions more than a candidate’s actual potential.
Jain’s message to recruiters
Sharing the experience, Jain urged recruiters to rethink the practice of using previous salary as the main benchmark for new offers.
She argued that a lower salary does not always indicate lower ability. Many professionals may be underpaid because of factors such as company policies, market conditions, location, or the type of organisation they work for.
According to Jain, relying too heavily on past compensation can lead companies to miss out on skilled candidates.
Her message to recruiters was clear: stop underpaying candidates simply because their previous salary was lower.
A job offer that appeared attractive because of a 50% salary hike turned into a reminder that compensation is not always about percentages.
A candidate earning ₹5 lakh per annum rejected an offer of ₹7.5 lakh after feeling it did not match his experience and market value. Months later, another company evaluated his skills differently and offered him ₹14 lakh per annum — more than double the earlier proposal.
Don't Miss:Rs 17,000 salary for MD, 40% stock mismatch: ED's explosive findings after raids on Rajesh Exports
The incident was shared by Delhi-based co-founder Kanika Jain on social media, where she used the example to question a common hiring practice: linking a candidate’s future salary too closely to their previous pay.
When a 50% hike did not feel enough
According to Jain, the conversation started after a recruiter pointed out that the candidate’s existing compensation was ₹5 lakh per annum. Based on that figure, the company offered ₹7.5 lakh per annum, describing it as a significant 50% increase.
The candidate, however, did not accept the reasoning. He felt the offer did not reflect his four years of experience and pointed out that the same company was reportedly offering around ₹12 lakh per annum to other candidates applying for the same role.
The recruiter maintained that there was no room for further negotiation and said the package was in line with market standards.
Candidate chose to wait for the right opportunity
Instead of accepting the offer, the candidate decided to walk away. He thanked the company for the opportunity but made it clear that he would not consider anything below ₹10 lakh per annum.
With both sides unable to reach an agreement, the candidate continued his search.
Later, another organisation assessed him based on his skills and experience rather than his previous salary. Despite his background in a service-based company, the new employer recognised his capabilities and offered him ₹14 lakh per annum.
For Jain, the difference between the two offers showed how salary history can sometimes influence hiring decisions more than a candidate’s actual potential.
Jain’s message to recruiters
Sharing the experience, Jain urged recruiters to rethink the practice of using previous salary as the main benchmark for new offers.
She argued that a lower salary does not always indicate lower ability. Many professionals may be underpaid because of factors such as company policies, market conditions, location, or the type of organisation they work for.
According to Jain, relying too heavily on past compensation can lead companies to miss out on skilled candidates.
Her message to recruiters was clear: stop underpaying candidates simply because their previous salary was lower.