00:00Nearly 15 years prevented from carrying out her duties, almost 17 years without her salary and
00:06other benefits. The Privy Council has delivered a stinging assessment of the Public Service
00:11Commission's handling of former prison officer Faviana Gadjadar's case. In its judgment delivered
00:18on October 12th, the board described the matter saying, quote, the history of this case is a sorry
00:23one which regrettably does no credit to the Public Service Commission of Trinidad and Tobago, end
00:29quote. Gadjadar joined the prison service in 2000. After suffering a back injury and taking periods
00:36of sick leave, she went on pregnancy-related sick leave and maternity leave in 2006. When she attempted
00:43to resume duty in September of that year, she was told she had not provided sufficient medical
00:50certificates to account for her absences. The Public Service Commission subsequently declared that she
00:56had resigned with effect from June 2007. Gadjadar challenged that decision through successive
01:03legal proceedings with the court repeatedly finding fault with the Commission's handling of her case.
01:09In October 2023, High Court Judge Frank Cipersad found that her constitutional rights had been
01:15breached, including her right to the enjoyment of property and her right to protection of the law.
01:21Justice Cipersad was particularly critical of the prolonged delay in paying her outstanding earnings,
01:26observing, quote, the evidence simply suggests that the system adopted was either grossly insufficient
01:33or designed to frustrate the claimant, end quote. The judge also found that the Commission's handling
01:40of the matter violated Gadjadar's constitutional rights. The High Court ordered the state to pay
01:45approximately $2.8 million in outstanding earnings, $275,000 in compensatory damages and $350,000 in vindicatory
01:57damages, a combined total of $3.45 million before interest and legal costs. Although the state's appeal
02:05against damages awards failed, the Court of Appeal set aside the finding that Gadjadar's right to the
02:10enjoyment of property under Section 4A of the Constitution had been breached. That was the issue
02:16taken to the Privy Council. The Board rejected the argument that the period of delay should be
02:22calculated only from 2021, finding that Gadjadar's entitlement to salary began when she was treated as
02:29having resigned in June 2007. In its judgment, the Board stated, quote, the Board does not regard this
02:36as a tenable distinction, end quote. It went on to conclude, quote, the withholding of salary
02:41throughout the period of 15 years from 2007 to the time of the current High Court decision was not
02:48only unlawful, null and void, but also amounts to an arbitrary exercise of state power, end quote.
02:55The Privy Council ultimately restored Justice Seepersad's declaration and allowed Gadjadar's repeal.
03:01The ruling reinforces the constitutional requirement for public authorities to act fairly and lawfully
03:07and confirms that the state's obligation to respect the rights of public officers
03:12could not be separated from its responsibility to pay what is legally due. For Gadjadar,
03:18it is the latest outcome in a legal battle spanning more than a decade and a half.
03:23Arvishi Tuwari, Rupnarain, TV6 News.
