ISHMAEL A. ADDO AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT [2010]DLCHRAJ6006

Date	2010-04-29
Suit No.	CHRAJ/83/2008/613
Citation No.	[2010]DLCHRAJ6006

JOSEPH WHITTAL

[2010]DLCHRAJ6006
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >ISHMAEL A.
ADDO<o:p></o:p>(COMPLAINANT)<o:p></o:p>AND<o:p></o:p>DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>(CHRAJ)<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;line-height:normal;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">CHRAJ/83/2008/613&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 29-4-2010<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">DECISION<o:p></o:p>

</div>INTRODUCTION<o:p></o:p>In a verbal complaint dated 12th February, 2008, Ishmael A. Addo,
the Complainant in this matter petitioned the Commission against the Department
of Community Development, the Respondent herein. The Complainant petitioned
against the Respondent's deliberate attempt to refuse him promotion after
serving on the grade of Senior Technical Officer for 21 years. The Complainant
petitioned the Commission to investigate the cause of the delay in his
promotion and also promote him to the rank due him.<o:p></o:p>FACTS OF THE
COMPLAINT<o:p></o:p>The Complainant is a Senior Technical Officer stationed at Cape
Coast in the Central Region. According to him, he has served on the above mentioned
rank since 1986, even though he was eligible for promotion every four years. He
stated that he has written several petitions reminding the Respondent about the
delay in his promotion, however, the Respondent has turned deaf ears to his
numerous appeals. The Complainant thinks it was a deliberate attempt on the
part of the Respondent to deny him promotion since his colleagues who were
below him in terms of rank had been promoted.<o:p></o:p>INVESTIGATIONS/OBSERVATIONS<o:p></o:p>In response to the above complaint, the Respondent stated that the
problem with the Department was that the Department had only one position for
the Principal Technical Grade in the whole country. According to the
Respondent, this position was being occupied by one Mr. E. K.Sackey, who was
due for retirement in 15th March, 2008. The Respondent stated that, the
situation has demoralised staff of the Department and has compelled them to
apply to the Head of Civil Service for expansion of the establishment in the
Technical Grades and were still expecting a positive feedback to enable the
affected staff have accelerated promotion. The Respondent indicated further
that the Complainant had been invited for interview on two consecutive
occasions but could not meet the required grade to enable him to be promoted.
The Complainant asserted in its reaction to the above response that the
principal position became vacant but the Respondent failed to invite him for
interview but rather interviewed his junior colleague who is now occupying the
position. The Commission afterwards held several deliberations with both
parties and at the end of the deliberations the Respondent agreed to interview
the Complainant for promotion.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:
1.4pt;line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">The Commission thereafter received a letter dated 30th July 2008,
which informed the Commission about the outcome of the Complainant's interview
and stated that the Complainant had been promoted with notional effect from 1st
January, 2004 and with substantive effect from 1st July, 2006, but were yet to
receive approval from the Head of Civil Service before it can be implemented.
However, the Respondent submitted another letter dated 30th July, 2008, which
indicated the Complainant's promotion with notional effect from 1st August,
2005 and substantive effect from 1st August, 2007. The Commission further
observed some inconsistencies regarding the Complainant's date of promotion in
the letters and subsequently wrote to the Respondent to reconcile the
conflicting dates in the two letters to enable the Commission know the correct
date of the Complainant's promotion. In response, the Respondent stated that
after conducting an interview, the Department sends a report and record of
decision to the Office of the Head of Civil Service for final determination.
The Respondent said further that they backdated the promotion date due to the
long delay in Complainant's promotion in their decision to Office of the Head
of Civil Service and this recommendation was subject to final authorisation by
the Office of the Head of Civil Service. Consequently the letter dated 13th
November 2008 was the one authorised by the Office of the Head of Civil Service
and thus formed the basis of Complainant's promotion.<o:p></o:p>The Commission finally observed that the delay in promoting the
Complainant was not wholly masterminded by the Respondent but rather due to the
structure of its administration.<o:p></o:p>DECISION<o:p></o:p>Having succeeded in honouring the Complainant's quest for
promotion, the Commission considers the matter resolved and therefore closes
investigation.<o:p></o:p>