A public servant sacked for tweeting her views faces the High Court this week.

In a case set to test whether public servants have the right to freedom of political speech, former public servant Michaela Banerji will test whether guidelines on apolitical communications apply to anonymous comments.

Ms Banerji wrote a series of tweets under the handle @LaLegale that were highly critical of the government’s foreign and immigration policies while she worked for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

Her tweets on topics from “our invasion of Iraq” to offshore processing, were anonymous and all except one were posted outside work on her personal phone.

Ms Banerji’s boss Sandi Logan replied to one of her tweets, saying: “Give it a rest @LaLegale. #DIAC celebrates success, not mired in harping. If you have a policy frustration, take it where it will make a diff.”

She was eventually found out and sacked by the department for not upholding public service values.

Ms Banerji was awarded compensation by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT)for post-traumatic stress she suffered as a result of her sacking.

The Tribunal found that the Public Service Act does not match the implied right to freedom of political communication in the Constitution.

The Federal Government now wants to overturn the AAT’s ruling.

The court must approach the issue in two parts.

First it must determine if the implied right to freedom of political communication in the constitution is compromised by the public sector law, and then whether it serves a legitimate purpose compatible with maintaining a responsible government.

Workplace Relations Lawyer James Mattson says case will have broad implications.

“What previous hearings on this topic have grappled with is the increasingly blurred boundaries between your work and personal time,” he told the ABC.

“If an employee posts anonymous comments on social media, can an employer who later finds out the identity of the employee, use these posts as grounds for dismissal?

“Secondly, is an employment contract or policy that requires a worker to behave 'at all times', in regard to their employer's interests, appropriate and legitimate?”