There can be a situation where the boss shows favouritism towards a particular employee for a bigger raise, leaving the more deserving employee with a smaller increment. This is especially common in the private sector, where employers have wider discretion in deciding appraisal. In contrast, the government sector has pay commissions, structured guidelines, character reports and rules to adhere to when it comes to appraisals.If you work in the private sector and suspect that your boss is giving preferential treatment to another employee for a higher appraisal, you have the option to pursue legal action. However, before you go down that route, it's important to understand how courts typically assess cases of increment discrimination at the workplace.Also read: Temporary employees can get pension even without formal regularisation if eligible, rules the Supreme CourtHow do courts evaluate increment discrimination at the workplace?Malak Bhatt, Founding Partner, NM Law Chambers, said to ET Wealth Online that Indian courts generally approach appraisal and increment discrimination through the following analytical lens, shaped by decades of judicial precedent:Step 1: Establish the comparator. The court first asks whether there is a genuine "comparator", an employee doing the same work, with similar qualifications, experience, and responsibilities, who received a better increment. The Supreme Court has held that unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups, there is no valid claim for equal pay. Minor differences in role scope, seniority, or qualifications can defeat the comparator argument.Also read: New labour code: Appointment letters must mention job role, workplace, and other key conditions; here's how employees benefitStep 2: Identify the ground of discrimination. Indian courts are significantly more receptive when the discrimination is tied to a legally protected characteristic. Courts have established that job evaluation must be conducted objectively, focusing on the actual work performed. Historical wage structures or past practices cannot justify continuing gender-based wage discrimination, and employers bear the burden of justifying any wage differentials based on factors other than gender such as qualifications, experience, or responsibilities.Also read: New labour code: 3 employee-friendly changes that could make working life easierFor pure performance-based favouritism without a protected ground, courts have historically deferred to management discretion. However, the principle of equal pay for equal work must be interpreted to apply to the private sector to prevent gender-based or arbitrary wage discrimination. The trajectory of judicial opinion is gradually expanding this doctrine beyond gender.Step 3: Assess the employer's justification. Once a prima facie case of differential treatment is made, the burden shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate, documented justification. Vague claims of "performance differences" without a documented appraisal process, ratings, or objective metrics will not satisfy courts. Historical wage structures or past practices cannot justify continuing discrimination, and third, the principle of equal pay for equal work must be interpreted broadly to encompass not just basic wages but all employment benefits and conditions. Step 4: Documentary evidence matters enormously. Courts in India rely heavily on written documentation. Employees who have email records of extra work assigned and completed, performance acknowledgements from managers, and communication showing differential treatment have significantly stronger cases than those who rely entirely on oral testimony.Step 5: Nature of Remedy. If discrimination in appraisal/increment is proven, courts may award:Back pay equivalent to the difference in increment amounts.Compensation for distress and financial loss.In cases involving a protected characteristic, additional statutory penalties on the employer.In exceptional cases, directions to restructure pay scales.Key Practical LimitationBhatt points out that in most government jobs, people earn the same pay for the same work , but this doesn't hold true for private sector positions. There is still a pay gap in the private sector, particularly in low-wage jobs and the unorganized sector. Bhatt says: "For white-collar private sector employees, appraisal decisions are treated as business judgements and courts intervene only in clear cases of mala fide intent or protected-ground discrimination."