Sacked cop wins challenge for compensation

SACKED policeman Euland Hendy, who challenged a judge’s failure to award him compensation for superannuation, had his appeal allowed in part.

George Barclay
George Barclay

The Appellant was discharged from the Guyana Police Force on July 6, 1983 on the grounds of unsatisfactory conduct and character under the Police Act, Chapter 16:01, s.35.
He challenged his discharge in November 1999. The trial judge, in his decision, stated that the respondents conceded that the Appellant was unlawfully removed from the Police Force and he awarded the Appellant compensation of 20 months ’ salary as at the date of discharge with interest, and costs in the sum of $75, 000.
The Appellant appealed on the grounds that the trial judge erred when he refused to award compensation for superannuation, which was a fundamental right under Articles 146 and 214 of the Constitution.
Held: Article 214 of the Constitution did not give an absolute right to pension to any officer, but made the exercise of the discretion to refuse or withhold conditional on the concurrence of the appropriate service commission. There was no evidence that the Commission had concurred in the refusal of the granting of pension to the Appellant. In the circumstances, he was entitled to pension for the 13 years he served in the Police Force.
The Appellant’s total entitlement was therefore damages of 20 months’ salary, as at the date of discharge, with interest on that sum at 6 % from November 22, 1999 until November 25, 2004 and thereafter at 4 % until judgment was paid in full along with pension for his 13 year period of service.
B. Gibson represented the Appellant while Doodnauth Singh, S.C. Attorney General appeared for the Respondent.
The Guyana Court of Appeal was constituted by Justices of Appeal Singh Kissoon and Chang.
Delivering the judgment of the Court Justice Singh said: Euland Hendy, the Appellant became a member of the Guyana Police Force on January 15, 1970 and served as a constable until July 6, 1983 when he was discharged from the Force on the ground of unsatisfactory conduct and character under section 35 of the Police Act . Cap. 16:01.
In his affidavit in support, the Appellant contended that the certificate of discharge issued to him alleged that he was removed because of unsatisfactory conduct and character but that no allegation of dishonesty of conduct unbecoming a police officer was ever made against him, nor was any disciplinary or criminal proceedings instituted against him prior to his discharge.
As a consequence, he challenged his discharge in an application by way of a Motion dated November, 1999 some 16 years after and sought the following order:

(a) An order declaring that his service in the Police Force was terminated by his compulsory mandatory retirement;
(b) An order directing the payment of all benefits due and owing to him as a result of his compulsory and mandatory retirement from the Police Force; and
(c) Costs.

The trial judge in his decision stated that it was conceded at the trial by the Respondents that the Appellant was unlawfully removed from the Force , and as a result he proceeded to award him compensation of twenty (20) month’s salary as at date of discharge with interests and costs in the sum of $75, 000.
The Appellant appealed the judgment on the ground inter alia: “that the learned trial judge erred when he refused to award compensation having regard to Articles 146 and 214 of the Constitution making superannuation a fundamental right.”
It is important to note that despite the fact that the motion was filed some 16 years after the
Appellant was discharged from the Force, the Respondents were generous in not raising any issue as regards the delay’ In the special circumstances of the case, this Court would not be able to entertain any arguments as the Attorney General attempted to proffer in respect of points not raised at the trial.
This article does not give an absolute right to pension to any officer but makes the exercise of the discretion to refuse or withhold conditional upon the concurrence of the appropriate Service
Commission.
There is no evidence on the record that the Commission had concurred in any refusal in the granting of the Appellant of his pension and in the circumstances the Appellant would be entitled to pension for the period he served in the force that is 13 years.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
The award made by the trial judge is upheld. The Appellant is therefore entitled to twenty (20) months’s salary , as at date of discharge, as damages together with interest on that sum at 6% from 22nd November ,1999 until 25th November ,2004 and thereafter at 4%,until the judgment is fully paid along with pension for his period of service of thirteen (13) years.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.