Ex-cop weeps over struggle to survive on disability grant

BARELY able to speak because of a stroke he suffered, a police officer who retired on grounds of medical unfitness wept as he told of his struggles to live on a meagre disability grant for the past three years.

He says the police have failed to pay him his gratuity and pension.

Bissoondath Samaroo, 50, of Barrackpore, in halting speech, said the monthly $2,500 he receives for permanent disability has been taking care of him and his wife, who is also partially disabled.

At the San Fernando office of his attorney Prakash Ramadhar, Samaroo said he feels abandoned by the State, which he served for 23 years as a police constable, until he fell ill.

“I am suffering with a stroke, loss of vision in one eye. I am attending psychiatric clinic, dealing with stress, diabetes, depression, diabetes, heart disease, renal failure. It is a struggle for me."

He also walks with the help of a stick.

“I feel as though the State has turned its back on me and it is affecting me physically and mentally.”

Samaroo said he could not understand why when officers like him retired, they could not get what was legitimately due to them so they could live comfortably.

Ramadhar said that is only part of the trauma Samaroo is facing.

He said he had filed a constitutional matter on Samaroo's behalf to get what the police service owed him. But on the basis of an Appeal Court ruling in another similar matter, Ramadhar said, he had been told Samaroo’s issue should not be contested as a constitutional matter, but converted into a breach-of-contract issue.

He said the alternative would have been to go to the Privy Council, which Samaroo could not afford, financially or in terms of time, to get a decision.

As a consequence, the constitutional matter was withdrawn and a breach-of-contract process filed.

However, Ramadhar said that caused the State to seek costs of some $17,000 for the withdrawal of the constitutional matter from the unemployed Samaroo, “whom they owe and who can barely feed himself.

“That was an abuse of process and the Constitution, which is to protect the least fortunate in our society,” Ramadhar said.

“To me, this is sickening, unacceptable and caustic to the conscience of the nation and I though it necessary to bring it to the attention of the people of TT.

“It is always the discretion of anyone, an applicant who succeeds, to go after costs, but the State speaks on behalf of each and every one of our citizens.

“A decision was taken, and I ask the question who gave that instruction, because I needed to know for my own personal wellbeing and peace of mind.

“The AG, whom I have known for 30-odd years, is a decent human being with a kind heart, and I cannot imagine the AG would have instructed the State, 'Go after this man for costs'.”

Ramadhar said he is seeking answers because this could send a message that if a citizen goes against the State for a legitmate claim, and is unsuccessful, the State will come after them for costs.

“It will have a chilling effect on the rights of each and every one of us, at least in the exercise of those rights that require litigation.”

Fortunately, he said Justice Davindra Rampersad subsequently ruled against the award of costs against the litigant.

Ramadhar said, nevertheless, Samaroo's languishing continues, as, despite his having filed according to the Court of Appeal’s decision in June 2023, the State is yet to put in a defence, in spite of several requests for extensions.