Court orders 144 DIS officers entitled to shift allowance
Mpho Mokwape | Wednesday October 8, 2025 08:14
Justice Zein Kebonang delivered the judgment on Friday in favour of Mohlouoa Motseko and 143 officers against the Attorney General after concluding that the officers had made a clear case and were legally entitled to the shift allowance.
The officers had claimed that they work shifts longer than eight hours and are entitled to a shift allowance in terms of Regulation 9 Rule 5 of the 2011 Public Service Regulations. The government disagreed, saying they already received a commuted overtime allowance and could not be paid both. Kebonang disagreed with the government’s argument and ruled in favour of the officers. “The respondent is in violation of Regulation 9(5) of the Public Service Regulations,” Justice Kebonang stated. He explained that the regulation is clear, as it says that officers who work shifts longer than eight hours “shall be entitled to be paid an inconvenience allowance commonly known as ‘shift allowance’”.
Justice Kebonang said the regulation was mandatory and did not suggest that receiving overtime allowance excludes shift allowance, pointing out that there was nothing in Regulation 9 Rule 5 that was either ambiguous or that called for a disjunctive reading. He stated that the expression ‘shall be paid’... expresses a mandatory and contractual obligation, and the government should have known better. The government, on the other hand, had relied on a 2000 Directive by the Director of Public Service Management (DPSM), which stated that shift allowance should not be paid to officers who are already receiving overtime. However, the judge said that the directive was not relevant to the current law, saying the 2000 Directive cannot be used to consider or give clarity or meaning to the 2011 Regulations. “It was not prepared to assist in the understanding of the 2011 Regulations because such regulations did not exist at the time,” Justice Kebonang explained. The judge added that relying on an old directive to block a benefit under a new regulation would lead to an unjust and absurd outcome. As a result, the court made the following orders:
• The respondent (government) is in violation of Regulation 9(5) of the Public Service Regulations. • The applicants (officers) are entitled to be paid a shift allowance. • The government is ordered to pay the officers 15% of their basic salary as shift allowance, from the date they started working 12-hour shifts. • Payment must be made within 30 days from the date of the order. • The applicants are awarded legal costs on a party-to-party scale. Background of the case The case involved 144 officers working under DIS, who filed a legal case against the AG on behalf of the DPSM. The officers explained that starting in 2021, DIS introduced a new shift system. According to their court papers, they began working 12-hour shifts instead of the original eight-hour shifts, with one group working from 6 am to 6 pm, whilst the second group worked from 6 pm to 6 am. They argued that Regulation 9 Rule 5 of the 2011 Public Service Regulations entitles them to a shift allowance if their shift exceeds 8 hours. The regulation states: “Employees who are engaged under shift work in excess of eight hours shall be entitled to be paid an inconvenience allowance.”
The government, however, said the officers were already receiving a commuted overtime allowance and could not be paid both relying on a 2000 Directive, which stated that: “Shift Allowance should only be paid to officers who are not receiving any other form of compensation from the overtime worked.” But the court said that the directive could not apply to the 2011 Regulations because it was issued before they existed. The officers were represented by Uyapo Ndadi, and the government was represented by Tsholofelo Motlhogelwa.