School Heads Win
Justice Jennifer Dube of Lobatse High Court has ordered the Director of Public Service Management (DPSM) to pay school heads, deputy school heads, department heads and principal education officers holding scarce skill qualifications.
This, as per the guidelines for implementation of Public Service Management directive No.2 of 2008, on attraction and retention policy.
In a judgment delivered recently, Justice Dube also directed DPSM to pay scarce skills allowance arrears to the above mentioned, school heads amongst others, to be paid from the date scarce allowance was stopped to the date of payment and shall continue to receive the same. “It is declared any decision of the director of Public Service Management claiming overpayment for extension of scarce skill allowance to school heads, deputy school heads, heads of department and principal education officers holding scarce skill qualifications is unlawful and erroneous/unjustified and in violation of the guidelines for implementation of Public Service Management directive No.2 of 2008, on attraction and retention policy, dated April 23, 2008,” Justice Dube said.
She added that any decision to declare or deduct any alleged overpayment of scarce skill allowance to school heads, deputy school heads, department heads, and principal education officers who hold qualifications attracting scarce skill allowance is suspended.
Justice Dube’s decision followed a case in which the Botswana Sector of Educators Trade Union (BOSETU) had taken DPSM to court on behalf of its members, who were employed as teachers by the Ministry of Basic Education and subsequently promoted to higher positions within the ministry.
BOSETU wanted the court to declare that the decision by payment of the Scarce Skills Allowance be extended to school heads, deputy school heads, department heads and principal education officers holding scarce skills qualifications in accordance with guidelines for implementation of Public Service Management directive No.2 of 2008, on the attraction and retention policy. The union also wanted the court to direct that their members be reimbursed emanating from arrears accumulated since the time the allowance was stopped to the date of payment.