Two retired High Court Judges – Justice Franklin Holder and Justice Brassington Reynolds – have returned to the Court but not to serve on the bench. Instead, they are both seeking a judicial review against a decision by the Government not to pay them a retroactive salary increase of 8% on their salaries dating back to December 2021.
The Judges filed two separate Fixed Date Applications (FDA) in the High Court on Thursday, through their Attorneys – Senior Counsel Stephen Fraser and Attorney-at-Law Shantel Scott-Lall.
The Attorney General, Anil Nandlall; the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), the Senior Minister in the Office of the President with responsibility for Finance, Dr Ashni Singh; the Finance Secretary, Sukrishalall Pasha; and the Principal Assistant Secretary, Finance Department of the Supreme Court, Asaf Alli have been named as the respondents in the matter.
The judges, in their applications, explained that as Constitutional office holders, they were entitled to a salary increase of 8% with effect from January 1, 2022, on their annual rate of salary as at December 31, 2021. However, the Government subsequently took a decision to limit the increase to all traditional public servants, staff of Constitutional agencies and members of the Disciplined services employed as of December 31, 2022. The decision, the retired Justices further explained, affected their pension.
Justices Holder and Brassington are therefore seeking a number of declarations and orders from the Court, including a declaration that as Constitutional office holders they were entitled to the salary increase of 8% with respect from January 1, 2022.
The retired judges are also asking the Court to declare that the Government’s failure to effect payment with respect to the 8% retroactive salary increase is inconsistent with, and in contravention of the right to equal pay for equal work, as guaranteed by Articles 22, 39, 40 and 149 (D) of the Constitution of Guyana, and further, that the failure to effect the necessary payments is also in contravention of their right not to be deprived of property, also guaranteed by the Constitution.
They have also asked the Court to declare that Government’s failure to pay the increase in salary, and include in the computation of their salaries for the purposes of pension, the 8% retroactive salary increase, is in contravention of their right to pension and superannuation benefits stipulated by the Constitution.
In general, they want the Court to declare that the actions of the State not to make the necessary increase is “arbitrary, ultra vires, unreasonable, irrational, unfair, whimsical, capricious and without legal authority.”
In the case of Justice Holder, he is asking the court to declare that he is entitled to a monthly pension in the sum of $819,556 and not the sum of $758,859 being the current pension paid. Additionally, he has asked the Court to order the Government to pay him the sum of just over $5 million, which includes the outstanding payments on both his salary and pension for the periods January 1, 2022 to September 30, 2022 in the case of his salary, and pension for the period October 2022 to December 2022, 2023, and 2024, in addition to his unpaid gratuity.
In the case of Justice Reynolds, he has asked the High Court to order and declare that he is entitled to a monthly pension in the sum of $819,556 and not the sum of $758,849 being the current pension paid. Further, he is asking the Court to declare that he be paid the sum of $5.1 million, which includes outstanding payments on both his salary and pension for the periods 2022, 2023 and 2024, in addition to unpaid gratuity.
Both Justices Holder and Reynolds are also each seeking damages in excess of $100,000.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login