Resolved: Unfair request for refund of qualification allowance

Resolved: Unfair request for refund of qualification allowance

Published April 27, 2026

The complaint

A complaint was lodged with the Office of the Ombudsman’s following the decision of the Ministry where the complainant worked, which demanded that he reimburse an amount paid to him representing the qualification allowance. The allowance had been initially approved by the Ministry’s management, but later it was deemed to have been authorised erroneously leading to the request for repayment. He alleged that the Ministry’s decision was unjust saying that the allowance had been duly approved and was paid to public officers in other grades.

Facts and circumstances

The complainant had tried to settle this matter by petitioning the One-Stop-Shop for Public Officers which referred the matter to the Grievance Board. The Board found that the allowance was due to postgraduate diploma if the entry requirement was a degree. Since the complainant did not have a postgraduate diploma, the allowance was not due and the request for the refund was justified.

The relevant Public Service regulations state that qualification allowances cease when a public officer is appointed to a grade in Salary Scale 4 or higher. The allowance is intended to encourage public officers to obtain qualifications relevant to their duties. Specific conditions apply as for instance an allowance being paid for the highest qualification and restrictions on the payment for allowances where the qualification is an eligibility requirement for the particular appointment. In the case of diplomas, only the postgraduates qualify if the entry requirement necessitates a first degree except for certain General Service grades.

The complainant was appointed as a Senior Manager. This necessitated a degree at MQF Level 6. He also had a Master’s degree (MQF Level 7) which, being an eligibility requirement, attracted no qualification allowance. Neither did his diploma, an undergraduate qualification at MQF Level 5 attract any allowance. In this aspect, the Grievances Board had been correct in that he should not have been paid for the undergraduate diploma.

This error was discovered after an HR Compliance Assessment. The payment was stopped and the complaint requested to reimburse the amount on the strength of Section 1027 of the Civil Code which allows the recovery of undue payments within two years of discovery of the erroneous payment.

Considerations

The Ombudsman noted that the complainant had been misled by the Ministry which should have informed him that the allowance was not due under the applicable regulations. Since the complainant followed the correct application procedure, which was approved, he should not be held culpable for receiving an authorised allowance.

The Ombudsman emphasised that while the Ministry’s recovery action was legally justified, it could be considered unreasonable, unfair and inequitable under principles of good administration which require decisions to be proportionate and just.

Conclusion and recommendation

The Ombudsman concluded that the Ministry’s action for recovery of the allowance was unreasonable, unjust and wrong. He recommended that the Ministry withdraw its request for a refund of the claimed amount.

On 5 September 2025 the Ministry concerned informed the Ombudsman that his recommendation was accepted and will be implemented.

This case study was published in the Case Notes 2025 publication