Injured cop wins sick leave lawsuit

A POLICE officer who had been on injury leave for three years, while receiving his salary, was suddenly asked by the office of the Commissioner of Policeto pay back every cent, amounting to $.4 million.

The reason given was that his injury leave with pay was reclassified as sick leave without pay.

Justice Frank Seepersad urged the personnel of the CoP's office to discharge their responsibilities diligently and he went so far as to call for an amendment of the Police Service Commission regulations so as to fix a specific time period for reclassifying leave for police officers.

The effect of the ruling means that Ashram Pariagsingh will not have to pay back $436,539.10.

Pariagsingh was stationed at La Brea Police Station. On May 8, 2012 at about 12.45 pm, while making checks at the back of the station, he slipped and fell on a wet, slippery floor. He was injured and was treated at hospital. The fall was due to a leaking pipe, but two police officers disputed Pariagsingh's claim, saying he fell at a nearby parlour.

The police human resource department asked Pariagsingh to continue submitting medical certificates and told him he would continue to receive his salary, since his time off would be classified as injury leave.

However, on October 22, 2015 after three years, he was told he would have to repay the salary he had received for the period.

In March 2016, the HR department told Pariagsingh as a result of the reclassification of his injury leave as sick leave without pay, the salary paid to him would be deducted from his back pay and gratuity.

Attorneys Anand Ramlogan, SC, and Gerald Ramdeen argued a judicial review lawsuit against the CoP, on the ground of the failure to give reasons. The State's case was argued by attorney M Davis, instructed by N Smart.

In a 20-page judgement yesterday, Seepersad said Pariagsingh was treated as if he was on injury leave, and fair play demanded that an officer ought not to receive a salary for such a long period on the premise he was on injury leave, only to have the rug of financial security pulled from under him.

The judge said, "The prestige of high office must be accompanied by the diligent discharge of the responsibilities of that office. There is need for a complete revolution in the way we think and approach our responsibilities as office-holders. The factual matrix of this case clearly demonstrates that consideration should be given as a matter of urgency to the amendment of Regulation 94 of the Police Service Commission regulations 2007, so as to include a specified time period within which the decision on leave classification should be effected."

The judge ordered that legal costs be assessed in default of agreement, and also that Pariagsingh's leave should be reclassified as injury leave with pay.