JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Friday, July 18, 2025

30 police sergeants seek to get colleagues’ injunction lifted

by

1491 days ago
20210618

A group of 30 po­lice Sergeants have ap­plied to have an in­junc­tion pre­vent­ing all pro­mo­tions to the rank of In­spec­tor, ob­tained by a group of their col­leagues, lift­ed.  Ac­cord­ing to court doc­u­ments filed and ob­tained by Guardian Me­dia, the group is seek­ing to be added to their col­leagues’ pend­ing case and to have their in­junc­tion lift­ed or var­ied so that they can be pro­mot­ed while their col­leagues con­tin­ue their le­gal ac­tion. 

The dis­pute arose late last year, as the Pro­mo­tion Ad­vi­so­ry Board held in­ter­views with can­di­dates and pre­pared a mer­it list for pro­mo­tions. 
The group of of­fi­cers, led by Po­lice So­cial and Wel­fare As­so­ci­a­tion Sec­re­tary Sgt An­cil Forde, filed an ap­pli­ca­tion for leave to pur­sue a ju­di­cial re­view law­suit over the pro­mo­tion ex­er­cise as they claimed that there were sev­er­al anom­alies with a new pro­por­tion­al point sys­tem in­tro­duced by Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er Gary Grif­fith for the ex­am­i­na­tion seg­ment. 

They were grant­ed an in­junc­tion block­ing all pro­mo­tions by High Court Judge Bet­sey Ann Lam­bert-Pe­ter­son, which was ex­tend­ed by High Court Judge Robin Mo­hammed.  
In the court fil­ings, the sec­ond group’s at­tor­neys, led by Se­nior Coun­sel Anand Ram­lo­gan, not­ed that the in­junc­tion, which blocked their clients’ pro­mo­tions, re­mains in place while the first group was still await­ing a de­ci­sion whether they should be grant­ed leave to pur­sue their law­suit.

They claimed that the pend­ing leave ap­pli­ca­tion was with­out mer­it as the Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er is per­mit­ted un­der the Con­sti­tu­tion to make the changes to the pro­mo­tion pro­ce­dure com­plained about. 
“Giv­en that more than six months have elapsed since the ap­pli­ca­tion for leave was filed, the prej­u­dice and detri­ment to the ap­pli­cants/pro­posed in­ter­est­ed par­ties who have ac­quired vest­ed rights to pro­mo­tion based on their po­si­tion on the Or­der of Mer­it List has wors­ened con­sid­er­ably,” they said.

They said that their clients were con­cerned that the mer­it list would ex­pire in De­cem­ber with­out them be­ing pro­mot­ed and that they would have to par­tic­i­pate in a lengthy pro­mo­tion pro­ce­dure once again. They ad­mit­ted that Grif­fith is em­pow­ered to ex­tend the list by a year but there is no guar­an­tee that he would ex­er­cise his dis­cre­tion to do so. 
“The in­junc­tion there­fore threat­ens to al­to­geth­er de­prive them of the op­por­tu­ni­ty to be pro­mot­ed to the rank of In­spec­tor be­fore they pro­ceed on pre-re­tire­ment and re­tire­ment leave,” they said. 
“This has ob­vi­ous im­pli­ca­tions for the gra­tu­ity, pen­sion and re­tire­ment ben­e­fits for these of­fi­cers and ad­verse con­se­quences and im­pli­ca­tions for their stan­dard of liv­ing post re­tire­ment,” they added. 

They al­so not­ed that since the dis­pute arose last year, their clients have been ap­point­ed to act in the po­si­tion. 
At­tached to the ap­pli­ca­tion was a cer­tifi­cate of ur­gency seek­ing to jus­ti­fy hav­ing it heard ur­gent­ly dur­ing the on­go­ing COVID-19 pan­dem­ic and an af­fi­davit of one of their clients, Sgt Aslim Ho­sein, who de­tailed his per­son­al ex­pe­ri­ence when he learned of the in­junc­tion on the day he was due to be pro­mot­ed. 

“I was emo­tion­al­ly dis­traught. I did not know how to process the fact that I would not be re­ceiv­ing the pro­mo­tion I worked so dili­gent­ly to­wards for so long,” Ho­sein said.
Ho­sein al­so not­ed that one of his col­leagues, who placed high on the mer­it list, died while await­ing pro­mo­tion. 
“The in­junc­tion in ques­tion has caused grave, far-reach­ing ef­fects on the ca­reer ad­vance­ment of all ap­pli­cants/pro­posed in­ter­est­ed par­ties in this case. It has ef­fec­tive­ly paused and/or placed our ca­reer ad­vance­ment in a state of abeyance and vac­il­la­tion,” Ho­sein said. 

A date for the hear­ing of the ap­pli­ca­tion is yet to be set.
The in­junc­tion was men­tioned by Grif­fith this week in a lengthy open let­ter to all po­lice of­fi­cers on pro­mo­tions. 
Grif­fith was al­leged­ly re­spond­ing to a com­plaint by Forde, over the Pro­mo­tion Ad­vi­so­ry Board not be­ing prop­er­ly con­sti­tut­ed. 
He claimed that the is­sue with the board was with a mem­ber put for­ward pre­vi­ous­ly by the Min­istry of Na­tion­al Se­cu­ri­ty.

Grif­fith claimed that he on­ly re­ceived an ob­jec­tion to the mem­ber from the min­istry in March af­ter the process was com­plete. 
Grif­fith ac­cused Forde of us­ing the as­so­ci­a­tion to pur­sue a per­son­al cru­sade as he claimed that he (Forde) had placed low on the mer­it list and was un­like­ly to be pro­mot­ed in the near fu­ture. 
“It ap­pears to me, there­fore, that his (Forde) mo­ti­va­tion and des­per­a­tion to now file an ac­tion and spread dis­cord about the said pro­mo­tion process he so ea­ger­ly ac­cept­ed when he was last pro­mot­ed to sergeant, is sim­ply about en­sur­ing that if he doesn’t have his way no one else will,” Grif­fith said. 
“What else can pre­cise­ly be his mo­tive? It cer­tain­ly isn’t in the in­ter­ests of the mem­bers since most of the mem­bers in line for these pro­mo­tions now sit above him in or­der of mer­it,” Grif­fith added. 

The sec­ond group of of­fi­cers seek­ing the lift on the in­junc­tion are al­so be­ing rep­re­sent­ed by Renu­ka Ramb­ha­jan, Jayan­ti Lutch­me­di­al, Alana Ram­baran, Ganesh Sa­roop and Natasha Bis­ram. 


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored