Concourt awards ex- ZAF personnel allowances

THE Constitutional Court has ruled that the Public Service Management Division Circular No.B21 of 2018 is unconstitutional, in so far as it limits payments made to retired personnel to a basic salary instead of retaining them on payroll, including housing allowance. The court has further granted five retired Zambia Air Force (ZAF) officers, a declaration that the State’s decision to stop paying their housing and utility allowances is unconstitutional. It has also, ordered that the State should pay the five, their housing and utility allowances including the withheld arrears until such a time when they will be paid their pension benefits. This is a matter in which five retired commissioned and non-commissioned officers serving in ZAF, petitioned the Constitutional Court in February last year, seeking a declaration that the Public Service Management Division Circular No.B21 of 2018 and Circular No.B1 of 2019 are unconstitutional. Retired ZAF officers; Owen Mayapi, Malasikwanda Manengu, Hexron Gondwe, Edward Falanga and Munkena Majory, citing the Attorney General as the respondent, also wanted a declaration that the State’s decision to stop payment of their housing and utility allowances was unconstitutional and an order that they be paid all their housing and utility allowances, including the withheld arrears until such time that they are paid their pension benefits in full. In a judgement, Constitutional Court judge Mungeni Mulenga on behalf of Constitutional Court president Hildah Chibomba and justices Annie Sitali, Palan Mulonda and Martin Musaluke, the court ruled that the petitioners’ case in relation to Circular No. B21 of 2018, had succeeded. Justice Mulenga said the Public Service Management Division Circular B21 of 2018, was therefore in violation of Article 189 (2) of the Constitution, in so far as it instructed that retired personnel retained on the payroll were only to receive their basic salary. Judge Mulenga said by retaining a person on the payroll after retirement and while awaiting payment of the pension benefit, the person should not be worse off in terms of the salary received than that which the person received while in employment. On the State’s argument touching on the strain that paying retired employees their salaries and allowances would put on the scarce government resources, the court noted that the said argument was not tenable in that the remedy did not lie in restricting what was paid to such retired personnel. The court stated that the remedy lies in each state agency or employer in ensuring that retired personnel were paid their pension benefits promptly as provided in Article 189 (1) of the Constitution.