HIGH Court marshall Mary Ann Morrison who was seeking prerogative reliefs from the Registrar of the Supreme Court for refusing to honour a 59-day sick leave claim, relative to illness overseas, recently lost the legal battle.And, she has been ordered to pay $40, 000.00 costs to the Secretary of the Public Service Commision.
Acting Chief Justice, Mr. Ian Chang, S. C., who on April 16, 2015, issued a Nisi Order of Certiorari directing Acting Registrar, Mr. Raschid Mohamed to show cause why his decision should not be quashed, has now discharged the Nisi Order against all the named respondents.
The C. J. said: “It follows that the Writ of Mandamus to compel payment does not lie against any of the named respondents. There will be costs to the Secretary of the Public Service Commission in the sum of $40, 000.00.”
In his judgment the Chief Justice had said, “While this court does not see the applicability of Rule H46 to the applicant as a person who was given leave to be spent abroad and who took ill abroad while on vacation abroad. it is clear that Circular No.4/1972 provides:-
“Public servants who have been granted leave to be spent overseas frequently apply for extension of time of leave on medical grounds. Where there is a Guyana Mission, such applications must be recommended by a medical practitioner nominated by that Mission, failing which requests will not be entertained.
“Directly it becomes apparent to a public servant while on overseas leave that ill health might prevent him /her from travelling to resume duty on time at the expiration of leave, he/she must promptly communicate with the appropriate Guyana Mission so that arrangement could be made for him/her to be seen by a Medical Practitioner nominated by that Mission.”
“The judgment added: “It does appear that the applicant was in breach of P.S.M. Circular No. 4/1972 and therefore rendered herself liable to loss of pay or disciplinary action.
“It does appear that the Permanent Secretary made a decision which was very favourable to the applicant since all he did was to decide not to grant sick leave pay to the applicant only in respect of days of sick leave absence not covered by medical certificates i. e. 4th December 2014 to 31st January, 2015 – 59 days . It appears that it is not all within his power to grant a public servant pay for sick leave for days not covered by any medical certificate.
“He therefore cannot be sensibly or reasonably accused of not granting to the applicant in respect of the 59 days leave of absence for reason of illness when there was no medical certificate attesting to her state of health in respect of those days. The Order or Rule nisi of Certiorari and Mandamus granted against him on the 16th April, 2015 must therefore be discharged, Chief Justice Chang stated.

By George Barclay