Victory for officers, sour grapes for gov�t
Mpho Mokwape | Friday January 26, 2018 18:20
The pair were this week squaring off at the Court of Appeal with the government trying to convince the three-man bench the officers were not entitled to remuneration as per a 2008 directive.
The Education Officers who are supervisors of school heads in 2014 took the government to court and emerged victorious after they were snubbed at a salary grading and job evaluation exercise that was undertaken.
The snub came in July 2013 when a salary structure was adjusted to address salaries and conditions of service as per directive No.1 of 2008. The directive in certain paragraphs stated that: “A job evaluation exercise be undertaken with a view of addressing levels of responsibility and accountability. The recommendations did not cover the officers as Principal Education Officers 1 and 3.
The officers, with the knowledge that they have the same qualifications as those who were considered through a salary structure, took the legal route to address their grievances.
However, the government feels the officers should have not won because there was no legitimate expectation.
Attorney Olayemi Aganga said there was no legitimate expectation for the officers to being graded despite having same qualifications as the school heads.
He argued that the officers were never given a promise by the relevant authority therefore they cannot expect to be evaluated and graded as such.
“The doctrine of legitimate expectation arises only in the field of administrative decisions. If the plea of legitimate expectation relates to procedural fairness there is no possibility whatsoever of invoking the doctrine as against the legislation,” he said.
Aganga submitted that the officers claimed to supervise the school heads therefore allegedly leading to an expectation to be remunerated at a higher level than the school heads.
He denied in essence explaining that there was no uniformity to the alleged position of supervisor as not all officers had the responsibility of supervision.
On the possession of same qualifications Aganga averred that the officers by their own version would only have had an expectation that originated from a promise to a third party.
“Even then the expectation will have to be qualified in terms to which the officers actually provided any kind of supervisory role, the officers in this regard were never given clear, unambiguous promise devoid qualification,” he finished.
Advocate Omphemetse Mooki in response said the issue of legitimate expectation was a clear one as his clients were officers in the Ministry of Education and Skills Development.
He explained that a practice came into existence in terms of which the government adjusted salaries of the officers whenever the government adjusted salaries of school heads.
“The practice tied the interests of school heads to those of the officers and the practice has been in place at least since 2008.
Mooki argued that the teachers fall under the teaching service and wonders why no adjustments were made to their salaries while a directive was issued in 2008 dealing with, amongst others, increases applicable in the public service including the teaching service.
Furthermore, Mooki noted that the court a quo accepted the existence of the practice as his clients contended it and that the appellants did not take the issue with the court’s findings of fact that the practice existed.
“The appellants did not even raise the issue of the practice as a ground of appeal and did not make any submissions as we contend. As such the appeal is therefore to be determined with reference to ‘the fact’ of the existence of a practice that officers were extended benefits whenever school heads received benefits,” he explained.
Mooki said the appeal by government should be dismissed as it had no substance and that the officers had proven that they have legitimate expectation to receive benefits on the implementation of the 2013 directive.