DEREK ACHONG
Senior Reporter
A T&T Regiment officer has succeeded in his lawsuit over an administrative error that affected his promotional prospects.
Delivering a judgment Tuesday, High Court Judge Frank Seepersad upheld the judicial review lawsuit brought by warrant officer class II Marlon Ollivierra against the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and the commanding officer of the T&T Regiment.
In deciding the case, Justice Seepersad noted that the CDS and the T&T Regiment commanding officer failed to explain the delay in rectifying the admitted error.
He said: "The facts in this case establish that the rectification of the Claimant's placement on the Claimant's placement on the seniority roll ought to have been rectified since 2012 and the unexplained failure to do so is wholly disproportionate and inconsistent with the tenets of good administration.
"There has been an inordinate delay which has exceeded a decade and this manner of administrative failure to maintain an accurate seniority roll is not only unacceptable but also manifestly unreasonable," he added.
In his lawsuit, Ollivierra, who has over 27 years of service, contended that after the issue arose in 2012 the T&T Regiment attempted to correct the error as had it not occurred he should have been placed 21st on the list for warrant officer class I based on his second-place standing in the warrant officer class II list.
However, he claimed that despite assurances that it would be corrected, it was not, and he was bypassed for promotion in favour of colleagues, who should have been ranked lower than him.
"My peers have been promoted ahead of me, both those of whom were senior to me and those who, but for the administrative error, would have been junior to me," Ollivierra said in his affidavit attached to the claim.
Dealing with the delay in rectification, Justice Seepersad ruled that it highlighted administrative dysfunction in the T&T Defence Force (TTDF).
"The factual matrix before this Court suggests that the system operated almost on autopilot, devoid of proactive management and this dysfunction transcended the various individuals who held these offices," he said.
"This suggests that the issues which retard efficiency within the organisation may be systemic," he added.
Justice Seepersad was also asked to rule on a decision by the commanding officer to promote Ollivierra below a junior colleague and not in accordance with his original seniority if the error was properly corrected.
He noted that a human resource officer, who was a witness for the defendants in the case, failed to provide copies of Ollivierra's performance appraisals, which would have been considered before the promotion was ratified.
"These documents should have been accessed by her and if they were not available further alarm bells as to the state of administrative dysfunction within the T&T Regiment should, sound as appraisals are essential for advancement within the Force," he said.
He said based on the failure there was no evidential basis for concluding that Ollivierra ought not to have been promoted.
Justice Seepersad issued a series of declarations in relation to the delay. He also ordered that Ollivierra be retroactively promoted as if the error did not occur.
Justice Seepersad also gave the parties 120 days to discuss and decide the retroactive pay Ollivierra should receive.
Ollivierra was represented by Arden Williams, Anthony Moore, and Mariah Ramrattan.
The defendants were represented by a team of lawyers led by Stefan Jaikaran.
