Any promise made in the advertisement or appointment order has to be fulfilled. There can not be any precondition to it.
I am giving you a few quotes from the courts. May be useful to you.
Because, the Supreme Court in the case of M.D., T. Nadu Magnesite Ltd. Vs. S. Manickam and Ors. LegalCrystal Citation : legalcrystal.com/842317 Reported in : JT2010(3)SC328 held
11. The doctrine of promissory estoppels or equitable estoppels is well established in the administrative law of the country. To put it simply, the doctrine represents a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice. The basis of the doctrine is that where any party has by his word or conduct made to the other party an unequivocal promise or representation by word or conduct, which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing as well as intending that the representation, assurance or the promise would be acted upon by the other party to whom it has been made and has in fact been so acted upon by the other party, the promise, assurance or representation should be binding on the party making it and that party should not be permitted to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so, having regard to the dealings, which have taken place or are intended to take place between the parties.
The above case proves that a promise made in the appointment order can not be violated, which is detrimental to one party.
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Director-General Of ... vs Sahara India Saving And ... on 6 September, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1990 68 CompCas 153 NULL Bench: G Luthra, H Gupta
The Supreme Court in Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. MRTPC  66 Comp Cas 519 as well as while dealing with the interpretation of the definition of unfair trade practice as given in Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act made the following observations (page 524 of 66 Comp Cas) : ''Does it lead a reasonable person in the position of a buyer to a wrong conclusion ?..... It is, therefore, necessary to examine whether the representation complained of contains an element of misleading the buyer. Does a reasonable man on reading the advertisement form a belief different from what the truth is ?" (emphasis supplied)
When a CTC was promised, it is a simple expectation that on joining one will get the CTC advertised. The CTC is cost to company which must be incurred by the company as it is an irrevocable promise made. No reason can be invented to avoid the cost.
Punjab-Haryana High Court in Punjab State Civil Supplies ... vs Pyare Lal on 9 November, 2012 Letters Patent Appeal No.113 of 2012 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/161767981/ (by 3 judge bench - in para 10) has held
The salary is a property given to the hands of the State which cannot be withheld except under the powers derived by a statute or law as contemplated under Article 300A of the Constitution of India as laid down by the Supreme Court in MANU/SC/0046/1988: AIR1988SC1407 [State of U.P. v. Haji Ismail Noor] and MANU/SC/0325/2003: 3SCR779 [K.S.R.T.C. v. K.O. Varghese].
The above case makes it clear that Salary promised can not be denied as it is the property of the employee.
29th September 2016 From India, Salem
It allows the government to be sued in the courts in spite of sovereign rights.
I do not know the context in which it will become applicable in solving the problem of the poster.
19th October 2016 From India, Mumbai
The concept of variable pay also varies from company to company, so it would be better if you shared your appointment letter so people know the exact clause
Mostly, variable pay is at the discretion of the employer.
So you dont get it if the company decided it does not want to give you
(again the exact wording of your appointment letter will make a difference)
Bonus is not being deducted from your salary, its a part of your CTC. Again, i guess unless your salary is less than Rs. 21,000 per month, bonus is at option of the company.
19th October 2016 From India, Mumbai