Ramaila v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others

The applicant, Mr Sekhoshe Days Ramaila, was appointed in March 2015 as a State Law Adviser in the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development after being recruited from private practice. He was appointed at the same time, on the same salary scale, and to perform the same work as other State Law Advisers, some of whom had been appointed from within the public service. All were subject to the same performance agreements and probation (save for those who had already completed probation previously). After achieving a 100% performance rating for the 2015/2016 financial year, the applicant was denied annual pay progression on the basis that, as a ‘new appointee to the public service’, he was required under PSCBC Resolution 1 of 2012, the Incentive Policy Framework, and the Department’s Performance Management Policy to complete 24 months’ service before qualifying for pay progression. His colleagues appointed from within the public service received pay progression after 12 months. The applicant challenged this differentiation as unfair discrimination under the Employment Equity Act and sought review and setting aside of the relevant policy provisions under PAJA.

The Labour Court reviewed and set aside the impugned provisions of PSCBC Resolution 1 of 2012 and the related policy provisions insofar as they required new appointees to wait 24 months for pay progression. The differentiation was declared unfairly discriminatory, and the applicant was entitled to appropriate relief flowing from the setting aside of the discriminatory provisions.

This case is significant for confirming that pay differentiation within the public service, even when grounded in collective agreements or ministerial policies, must comply with the Employment Equity Act and constitutional standards of equality. It affirms that new entrants to the public service may not be arbitrarily disadvantaged in pay progression where they perform work of equal value and meet the same performance standards. The judgment also clarifies that PSCBC resolutions and related policies may constitute administrative action reviewable under PAJA.