JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Sunday, March 16, 2025

State to pay prison officer $3.5M for unlawful dismissal

by

Derek Achong
506 days ago
20231027
Prison officer Favianna Gajadhar

Prison officer Favianna Gajadhar

The State has been or­dered to pay more than $3.5 mil­lion in com­pen­sa­tion to a prison of­fi­cer, who was re­in­stat­ed last year fol­low­ing a 15-year le­gal bat­tle with the Pub­lic Ser­vice Com­mis­sion (PSC) over be­ing de­clared to have aban­doned her job af­ter miss­ing work for sev­er­al months due to in­jury and preg­nan­cy.

De­liv­er­ing a de­ci­sion yes­ter­day morn­ing, High Court Judge Frank Seep­er­sad or­dered com­pen­sa­tion for Fa­vian­na Ga­jad­har, of Ari­ma, af­ter up­hold­ing her law­suit for breach­es of her con­sti­tu­tion­al rights.

The ma­jor­i­ty of the com­pen­sa­tion rep­re­sents the $2,821,744.54 in salary and ben­e­fits she would have re­ceived had she not been im­prop­er­ly ter­mi­nat­ed by the PSC.

Ga­jad­har was award­ed $125,000 for the dis­tress and in­con­ve­nience she suf­fered and $150,000 for her loss of the chance of be­ing pro­mot­ed dur­ing the pe­ri­od be­fore she was even­tu­al­ly re­in­stat­ed. Jus­tice Seep­er­sad al­so or­dered $350,000 in dam­ages to vin­di­cate the breach­es of Ga­jad­har’s rights.

“This Court is there­fore res­olute in its view that it must send a strong mes­sage that a breach of a cit­i­zen’s right to a fair hear­ing and the im­po­si­tion of a penal­ty ex­cept by the en­gage­ment of dis­ci­pli­nary pro­ceed­ings, will not be tol­er­at­ed,” the judge said.

Ac­cord­ing to the ev­i­dence in the case, Ga­jad­har, who joined the T&T Prison Ser­vice in 2000, suf­fered a back in­jury and was ab­sent from du­ty for ex­tend­ed pe­ri­ods be­tween 2004 and 2006.

Ga­jad­har be­came preg­nant dur­ing the pe­ri­od and sought to re­sume her du­ties three months af­ter her daugh­ter was born in June 2006. She was barred by her su­per­vi­sor, who in­di­cat­ed that she could not re­sume her du­ties as she had not prop­er­ly ac­count­ed for the pe­ri­ods of her ab­sence.

While Ga­jad­har claimed she sub­mit­ted her sick leave and ma­ter­ni­ty leave cer­tifi­cates, the Com­mis­sion still de­clared that she had ef­fec­tive­ly re­signed from her post in June 2007, as she was ab­sent with­out leave from April 2006 to then.

Ga­jad­har filed a ju­di­cial re­view case against the Com­mis­sion, which was up­held by the High Court and the Court of Ap­peal, who or­dered it (the Com­mis­sion) to re­con­sid­er.

The Com­mis­sion re­con­sid­ered the is­sue in No­vem­ber 2017 and stood by its ini­tial de­ci­sion al­beit for a dif­fer­ent rea­son, an is­sue with Ga­jad­har’s ma­ter­ni­ty leave ap­pli­ca­tion un­der the Ma­ter­ni­ty Ben­e­fit Act.

Ga­jad­har filed an­oth­er law­suit against the sec­ond de­ci­sion, which was al­so up­held by the High Court and Court of Ap­peal.

The PSC con­sid­ered the case for the third time and re­in­stat­ed Ga­jad­har in April, last year. How­ev­er, she was not paid her out­stand­ing salary and ben­e­fits for the past 15 years as the PSC in­struct­ed the Pris­ons Com­mis­sion­er to do so by “clas­si­fy­ing” her ab­sence from du­ty.

When the case came up for hear­ing, the PSC ac­cept­ed that Ga­jad­har was owed her out­stand­ing salary and ben­e­fits but said she would on­ly be paid af­ter an au­dit was con­duct­ed.

In his judg­ment, Jus­tice Seep­er­sad crit­i­cised the PSC for its de­lay in pay­ing Ga­jad­har her out­stand­ing salary.

“The ev­i­dence sug­gests that the sys­tem adopt­ed by the Com­mis­sion was ei­ther gross­ly in­ef­fi­cient or de­signed to frus­trate the claimant,” he said.

“The ev­i­dent­ly lethar­gic ap­proach adopt­ed by the Com­mis­sion can­not be con­doned and the man­ner in which the claimant was treat­ed vi­o­lat­ed her con­sti­tu­tion­al rights,” he added.

Jus­tice Seep­er­sad said the case high­light­ed how ill-ad­vised de­ci­sions by ser­vice com­mis­sions can have an ad­verse im­pact on the lives of em­ploy­ees that fall un­der their purview.

As part of his de­ci­sion, Jus­tice Seep­er­sad or­dered the PSC to pay Ga­jad­har’s le­gal costs for the case. He al­so grant­ed an ap­pli­ca­tion from the PSC for a 21-day stay of the judg­ment for the Com­mis­sion to de­cide whether it wish­es to ap­peal.

Ga­jad­har was rep­re­sent­ed by Anand Ram­lo­gan, SC, Kent Sam­lal, Jared Ja­groo and Natasha Bis­ram. The PSC was rep­re­sent­ed by Ian Ben­jamin, SC, Keisha Pros­per and Can­dace Alexan­der.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored