Derek Achong

Se­nior Re­porter

derek.achong@guardian.co.tt

Chief Med­ical Of­fi­cer Dr Roshan Paras­ram has been di­rect­ed to es­tab­lish a func­tion­al sys­tem for pub­lic health in­spec­tors to re­ceive over­time pay­ments for spe­cialised ser­vices they pro­vide dur­ing and af­ter their nor­mal work­ing hours. 

High Court Judge Mar­cia Ay­ers-Cae­sar is­sued the di­rec­tive in late Feb­ru­ary as she up­held a ju­di­cial re­view law­suit over a pro­tract­ed de­lay in im­ple­ment­ing reg­u­la­tions that es­tab­lished the pay­ment sys­tem. 

The law­suit re­lat­ed to the ap­pli­ca­tion of two sets of reg­u­la­tions in re­la­tion to pub­lic health in­spec­tors that were set in 1992 and 2005. 

The first reg­u­la­tion gave in­spec­tors the pow­er to claim over­time when they were called up­on to in­spect con­tainer­ised food stuff out­side their nor­mal work­ing hours or on their off days. 

It re­quired en­ti­ties seek­ing such in­spec­tion to pay the over­time re­quired for the in­spec­tors, as well as their trans­porta­tion and meal al­lowances. 

The 2005 reg­u­la­tions al­lowed in­spec­tors to make over­time claims for work done on ves­sels, ships, air­craft and slaugh­ter­hous­es even dur­ing their work­ing hours. 

The case was filed by Cur­tis Cuffie and An­nisha Per­sad, through their lawyer Raisa Cae­sar, af­ter they re­peat­ed­ly ques­tioned the lack of im­ple­men­ta­tion dur­ing meet­ings to no avail.

They claimed that the lack of reg­u­la­tions led to an ad hoc sys­tem un­der which ship­ping agents and oth­ers were pay­ing in­spec­tors di­rect­ly for the ser­vices.  

The duo al­so took is­sue with a de­ci­sion which was tak­en to not re­quire fees from third par­ties for the cer­ti­fi­ca­tion of a ship’s san­i­ta­tion. 

They al­so claimed that they were sub­ject­ed to dis­ci­pli­nary ac­tion af­ter high­light­ing the le­gal is­sue in the case. 

In up­hold­ing the case, Jus­tice Ay­ers-Cae­sar re­ject­ed claims from the State that the in­spec­tors could not re­ceive over­time pay­ments for work done dur­ing their nor­mal work­ing hours. 

Stat­ing that the po­si­tion was in­con­sis­tent with the 2005 reg­u­la­tions, Jus­tice Ay­ers-Cae­sar said: “The nat­ur­al and or­di­nary mean­ing of the Reg­u­la­tions, read as a whole, pro­vid­ed a fee-pay­ing regime for spec­i­fied ser­vices, whether ren­dered dur­ing or out­side of the nor­mal hours, with cor­re­spond­ing pay­ments to be made to the pub­lic health in­spec­tors.”

She al­so found that Paras­ram act­ed out­side his ju­ris­dic­tion by fail­ing to im­ple­ment the reg­u­la­tions. 

“It ought to be not­ed that the De­fen­dant can­not cre­ate a sys­tem by Reg­u­la­tion, watch it fail due to its own lack of ad­min­is­tra­tion and then use that fail­ure as a shield against in­di­vid­u­als who per­formed the work which the sys­tem was de­signed to com­pen­sate,” she said. 

“By fail­ing for years to es­tab­lish any ap­pa­ra­tus for its op­er­a­tion and by is­su­ing a di­rec­tive that im­plic­it­ly de­nied the ap­plic­a­bil­i­ty of the fee struc­ture, the First De­fen­dant (Paras­ram) stepped out­side of the ad­min­is­tra­tive role per­mit­ted by the Reg­u­la­tions and in­stead shift­ed his fo­cus to that of ef­fec­tive­ly sus­pend­ing the pay­ment scheme,” she added. 

Jus­tice Ay­ers-Cae­sar al­so found that the de­lay in im­ple­men­ta­tion was un­rea­son­able, ir­reg­u­lar and im­prop­er. 

She al­so found that the duo’s con­sti­tu­tion­al right to en­joy­ment of prop­er­ty and not to be de­prived of such ex­cept by due process of law was breached. 

She is­sued a se­ries of de­c­la­ra­tions over Paras­ram’s in­ac­tion and an or­der com­pelling him to es­tab­lish a func­tion­al sys­tem of fee col­lec­tion and over­time pay­ment with­in six months. 

Al­though she or­dered com­pen­sa­tion for breach of the duo’s con­sti­tu­tion­al right, such would be as­sessed by a High Court Mas­ter at a lat­er date. 

In an in­ter­view at Guardian Me­dia’s Port-of-Spain of­fice yes­ter­day, the duo hailed the hard-fought out­come, which can­not now be ap­pealed as the time for do­ing so has al­ready elapsed. 

Per­sad said, “This judg­ment will now pave the way for prop­er im­ple­men­ta­tion of the pay­ment sys­tem, en­sur­ing greater ef­fi­cien­cy, trans­paren­cy, and fair­ness.”

Cuffie, a long-stand­ing and ac­tive mem­ber of the Pub­lic Ser­vices As­so­ci­a­tion (PSA), ex­plained his de­ci­sion to pur­sue the lit­i­ga­tion, which he will not be able to ben­e­fit from as he re­tired be­fore the judg­ment was de­liv­ered. 

“In a lot of in­stances, pub­lic ser­vants are in­tim­i­dat­ed from tak­ing ac­tion, but I am not one of those in­di­vid­u­als.”