Govt should look at the Pensions Act

“I would like the Government to look at the Pensions Act, look at what is before us and to determine whether legally does it not make sense to ensure that all fire officers, not only those who retired since 2008, and who acted in their positions, but all officers who are still alive, who may have worked during the coup, during the difficult times, could we look and see what provisions could be made and whether the Pensions Act would not be the law, that would rule,” Mahabir queried.

Mahabir was speaking on the bill to mmend the Fire Service Act Chapter 35:05 in the Upper House in the Parliament, yesterday. The Bill was piloted by Labour Minister Jennifer Baptiste-Primus in the Parliament Chamber.

He said an officer who acted in a higher position for three years, and then returned to his former position for two months and then went into retirement, would not be compensated for the years that he acted in that former position.

Mahabir said Clause 2 in the Pension Act stated that such officer, immediately prior to the date of his compulsory retirement, “shall be eligible to have his pension, gratuity or other allowance calculated as if he were substantively appointed to that higher office.” “This clause came from somewhere, it was lifted from somewhere, and so from where was it lifted? What we are doing is simply following the law that is stated in the pension plan. Section 16 (a) is the law of the land” he said.

The Pension Act 16(a) stated “where an officer who immediately prior to his compulsory retirement or date on which he proceeds on annual leave prior to the date of compulsory retirement has acted in a higher office for a period three continuous years, that officer shall be eligible to have his pension, gratuity or other allowance calculated as though he was confirmed in that higher office.” “I am wondering whether it is Government’s policy in that situation we don’t consider giving them a lump sum to compensate for the fact that the beneficiary, via the luck of the draw, for not having acted continuously until retirement?” Mahabir queried. He put to Baptiste-Primus whether she would inform them as to what was happening with respect to other areas of the public service, whether other officers were in similar circumstances and whether consideration would be given to officers whose service, while continuous, may have been truncated a few months before their retirement.

Mahabir proposed that a fire officer who retired in 1988, and was still alive, should fall under the provision of this bill.

He said this was a small bill cost to pay to the fire officers.

“We cannot challenge the need to regularise pensions. We have too many hodge podge pieces of legislations in Trinidad and Tobago, and we need to make sure that the system becomes fairer and fairer as our society ages. The issue is not cost, the issue is priority,” he said..

“All fire officers, I would hope, all public officers, who were under the state’s employ, and who come under the protection of the laws of TT, and who acted for three years continuously, let us see if they are not entitled to the same benefits as those who retired in 2008,” he said.