Fireman to be compensated

In a 29 page ruling, Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux, Rajendra Narine and Prakash Moosai upheld the appeal of Michael Dindayal who challenged a judge’s decision to dismiss his constitutional motion due to delay in filing his claim.

The judges held that damages are to be paid to Dindayal to be assessed by a judge for the years 1987, 1994 and 1998 when he was being considered for promotion by the PSC.

Justice Bereaux, who delivered the ruling, found that Dindayal’s right to protection of the law was infringed.

Dindayal, of Bertrand Street, San Fernando, had 23 years service at the time he filed a constitutional motion on September 15, 2003.

He contended that although he held a certificate from the Institute of Fire Engineers in the United Kingdom, he had been constantly denied promotion each year for the past 23 years.

He was represented by attorneys Anand Ramlogan, compete- SC, Kent Samlal and Delicia Helwig-Robertson.

He also contended he completed numerous other courses in fire-fighting geared towards enhancing his chances of promotion and received seven letters of commendation for outstanding service as a fireman.

He said he witnessed other firemen of his rank promoted above him while others, junior to him, were given acting appointments in a rank senior to him. Dindayal stated that his staff reports gave him an excellent performance rating as a fireman and that during his 23 years in the service, he has never been the subject of any disciplinary action.

In his ruling, Justice Bereaux inferred from the evidence presented to the court that several staff reports had not been completed and the failure to complete the reports would have meant that the PSC would not have had these before it in 1987, 1994 and 1998 when the appellant was considered for promotion.

“The staff reports are an important part of the criteria used by the commission as a basis for assessing the officer’s performance of his duties and suitability for promotion,” Bereaux said.

“In considering an officer’s promotional prospects the commission will be interested to look at the officer’s performance over the long term.

One staff report will not be sufficient,” the judge added, noting also that Dindayal would not have been properly assessed for promotion in the absence of the staff reports.

Justice Bereaux also found that the failure to complete the staff reports was a breach of the PSC’s regulations and Dindayal would not have had the benefit of the protection of regulations.

He also pointed out that it appeared that Dindayal was not aware of the non-completion of his staff reports until it was revealed at the appeal.

“It is the ongoing duty of the commission to have these reports on file and up to date particularly because they were required to assess the officer’s promotional prospects as and when vacancies arose,” Justice Bereaux said.

He further noted that the non-production of the reports begged the question whether they were every properly before the commission at the time of consideration of Dindayal’s promotional prospects.

Attorney Neil Byam appeared for the State at the appeal