Joshua Seemu­n­gal

Se­nior Mul­ti­me­dia Re­porter

The High Court has ruled that the Trinidad and To­ba­go Po­lice Ser­vice (TTPS) must pay a re­tired po­lice Sergeant, who left the ser­vice due to med­ical rea­sons af­ter 23 years, her full pen­sion and gra­tu­ity, with in­ter­est, af­ter she took the TTPS to court for fail­ing to pay her ben­e­fits for six years.

He­lene Mor­ri­son re­tired in Feb­ru­ary 2020 af­ter sus­tain­ing a spinal in­jury from falling down a flight of stairs in 2018 at the Cu­mu­to High­way Pa­trol Base.

She was on in­jury leave for two years be­fore her re­tire­ment.

Mor­ri­son ar­gued that in the ab­sence of her re­tire­ment ben­e­fits, she was un­able to set­tle mount­ing med­ical debts for treat­ment re­lat­ed to her in­jury.

She was ini­tial­ly treat­ed at West­shore Med­ical Pri­vate Hos­pi­tal in Co­corite.

The for­mer po­lice of­fi­cer said she strug­gled to meet ba­sic liv­ing ex­pens­es, be­com­ing fi­nan­cial­ly de­pen­dent on fam­i­ly mem­bers to pay her mount­ing mort­gage debt.

Mor­ri­son was al­so di­ag­nosed with ma­jor de­pres­sive dis­or­der.

In an at­tempt to re­solve the pay­ment is­sue, she re­peat­ed­ly called and vis­it­ed the ser­vice, on­ly to be told that her file was still be­ing processed or with au­di­tors.

She said, as a re­sult, she was left with no choice but to sue them for breach of con­tract, a breach of Reg­u­la­tion 183 of the Po­lice Ser­vice Reg­u­la­tions, and an un­con­sti­tu­tion­al de­pri­va­tion of her prop­er­ty.

The state ar­gued that the de­lay was caused by a mul­ti-lay­ered and com­plex ad­min­is­tra­tive process that is re­quired un­der Po­lice Ser­vice reg­u­la­tions.

It added that the claimant’s file was sub­ject to queries, par­tic­u­lar­ly con­cern­ing her State­ment of In­debt­ed­ness and the clas­si­fi­ca­tion of sick leave, which had to be re­solved be­fore any fi­nal pay­ment could law­ful­ly be made.

The Court found that the de­lay in pay­ment was not an ad­min­is­tra­tive in­ef­fi­cien­cy, as ar­gued by the TTPS’ and the State’s at­tor­neys, but rather a breach of con­tract.

It called the de­lay in pay­ments “whol­ly un­rea­son­able.”

The state sought to re­cov­er a $588,000 debt from Mor­ri­son, al­leg­ing that a 2024 au­dit showed the ser­vice was owed two years of over­pay­ments of salary and al­lowances, be­tween 1998 and 2000.

In­stead, the High Court, in its April 8 rul­ing, re­buked the State’s claim.

Jus­tice West­min James crit­i­cised the State for be­ing ad­min­is­tra­tive­ly neg­li­gent.