DIS officers sue gov’t
Mpho Mokwape | Monday November 20, 2023 06:00
Over 400 employees have issued a writ of summons against the Directorate of Public Service Management (DPSM), the DIS and the Attorney General on grounds that the decision taken by the government not to pay salary back pays effective from April 2008 was unlawful.
The writ of summons comes from a long standing issue between the officers and their employer on the fast tracking of employees’ progression, as the officers have in the past bemoaned that the DIS continues to ignore a court order that was issued against all ministries for salary scales and a subsequent directive by the DPSM enforcing the judgement.
The employees' concerns are in relation to the DPSM directive reportedly meant to fast track progression of public servants in the C-band category but at the DIS, it has been alleged by some employees that things have not been effected as per the directive. According to the officers, in 2007 the government introduced multiple titling and grading of C-band positions through a Savingram DPSM 13/34/9 (43) dated May 30, 2007.
The directive was reportedly meant for all ministries but with the government realising many were not complying as a follow up to the 2007 Savingram, the government issued Directive No. 6 of 2008, where the objectives of multiple grading and titling was vividly set out.
The Directive allowed for direct appointment of graduates with appropriate academic qualifications at entry level but without experience and to facilitate faster progression of serving officers who qualify for promotion without the need for ministries to request for additional posts or resources. With both the 2007 Savingram and the 2008 Directive on multiple grading and titling of C-band positions being applicable to all ministries, the DIS officers allege that they were also included but have not yet benefited from the Savingram and the Directive. Particulars of the claim are that the officers are aggrieved by the decision taken by the government not to pay salary backpays despite the court order and the directive. “The decision is contrary to Directive No. 6 of 2008 as read with the Savingram titled Implementation of the Court of Appeal Judgement Pertaining to Directives and Savingrams on Multiple Titling and Grading of C-Band Positions dated May 13, 2022,” reads the summons.
The officers ,who are represented by Collins Chilisa Consultants, say they had a legitimate expectation to receive back pays effective from April 2008 and that the decision was unlawful in so far as the decision to pay is not back dated from 2001 when the Directive No. 10 of 2001 came into force. The officers submitted that the government has communicated its intention to not pay them salary back pays in terms of 2008 Directive effective from 2010 when they joined the DIS. In the summons, the officers argued that a cause of action was clear in the sense that in terms of Directive No. 10 of 2001, public officers have the right to be assessed and where a vacancy exists, they are to be recommended for promotion after a minimum period of two years instead of three years as was the case prior to that directive.
“In order to improve progression and capacity in the public service, the government resolved that all positions at the C Band be multi titled and graded C 1/2/3/4, effectively creating a pool of posts at the C Band, and in addition provide government ministries flexibility in the recruitment and filing of these posts,” said the summons. According to the officers the above mentioned was communicated through the DPSM Savingram dated May 30, 2007 and subsequently, in terms of Directive No. 6 of 2008, all public officers in the C-Band grades who qualify for promotion became entitled to automatic progression after every two years up to the top notch of the C-Band.
The summons reads: “This created a progression regime in the public service unique to the C-Band and for which progression was not limited to the number of positions available in the successive higher notches of the C-Band. The directive effectively opened up and made available at each notch of the C-Band openings and posts to cater for those from the lower notches of the C-Band as and when they each completed two years, in a lower succeeding band and they automatically rose to the higher notch thus effectively creating a plateau at the top notch of the C-Band, provided they were eligible for promotion,” Furthermore, the automatic progression is reportedly only limited to the C- Band and that in each financial year, the government was, by virtue of the Directive No. 6 of 2008, required to budget not only for the posts which were in the establishment register but also to make provision for the progression in the various notches of the C-Band to cater for progression.
The officers said as a result, the circular savingram enitled Implementation of the Court of Appeal Judgment Pertaining to Directives and Savingrams on Multiple Titling and Grading of C-Band Positions dated May 13, 2022 was issued. Its title suggests its purpose was to shed light on how the directives and savinggrams on multi titling were to be implemented in line with the AG versus Sefore 2021 court decision which mentioned that circular savingram provides that public servants' progression should be assessed on a case by case basis and the guidelines that follow should be applied, that the public servant should have completed at least two years in a given C-band grade and that he public servant's performance should must have been reviewed during that period.
Moreover, the decision mentioned that the level of performance must be at a level where the public servant would ordinarily be eligible for promotion, that the C-band stand-alone position is excluded from dispensation and that the dispensation took effect from April 1, 2008, but the date of implementation differs from individual to individual depending on the processes involved in recruitment and promotion. Subsequently, the officers demand that they be paid the back pays as per the court order and the directive.
The respondents have been given 14 days from the time of the summons to have entered a notice of appearance to defend.