Judge rules for prison officer

A HIGH Court judge has ruled in favour of a prison officer who lost her job when the Public Service Commission (PSC) took a decision that she resigned because she failed to show up for duty for a year as she was on pregnancy leave.

Now the PSC, for a fourth time, has been ordered to reconsider its most recent decision in 2017 that Favianna Gajadhar resigned in June 2007.

Gajadhar has been challenging the PSC’s decision for more than a decade and yesterday she was again successful in the San Fernando High Court when Justice Frank Seepersad ruled in her favour, granting declarations that the PSC’s decision was illegal, quashing the decision to “resign" her and sending it back to the commission for consideration.

According to Seepersad’s ruling, the PSC decided that she resigned her office based on discrepancies on her medical leave certificates.

However, he pointed out that no disciplinary hearings were held and this should have been done and Gajadhar should have been given an opportunity to make representations before the commission formed the view that she abandoned or resigned from her job.

He also said the PSC should have considered that Gajdahar was not responsible for any miscalculation or error in her estimated delivery date and without justification, a decade later, changed its position that she did not properly account for her absence from work for a year.

“The new position that she also failed to comply with the provisions of the Maternity Protection Act is materially unfair and conflicts with the principles of natural justice,” Seepersad said.

He added, “The claimant's pregnancy has never been an issue and the failure to formally make an application under section 4 of the Maternity Protection Act could not disentitle her from having maternity leave.

“Even where no written notice is given, notification of pregnancy, whether oral or otherwise, for example, by the receipt of a medical certificate which confirms that the employee is pregnant, should suffice and the employee would be entitled to the benefit under the act. In a system, which is heavily staffed by men, it appears that the position adopted by the Prison Service was misogynistic and archaic.

“ The course of action adopted by the defendant has been characterised by a disturbing degree of arbitrariness and has instilled a measure of disquiet in the court’s mind. The court has been left with the impression that the Prison Service and the defendant may have viewed the Claimant's pregnancy as an inconvenience. Any such notion, however, has no place in a democratic and progressive society where equality of treatment under the law and gender equality should be viewed as being of paramount import.”

The commission was ordered to pay Gajadhar’s legal costs and a stay of 21 days has been granted.

Gajadhar was represented by Anand Ramlogan, SC, Gerald Ramdeen, Jared Jagroo, and Alana Rambaran. Ian Benjamin, SC, Keisha Prosper, Anala Mohan, and Candice Alexander represented the PSC.