17 Hrs Ago
Justice Frank Seepersad –
A HIGH COURT judge has given the green light to a retired city assessor to challenge the San Fernando City Corporation’s failure to calculate her pension and gratuity owed to her.
Heidi Henry sued the San Fernando City Corporation for failing to calculate her pension and gratuity based on her correct salary following a 2020 decision of the High Court, which held she was entitled to be treated equally to her comparator at the Port of Spain City Corporation and receive pension and gratuity at salary range 59D.
She was granted leave by Justice Frank Seepersad to pursue her claim against the corporation, which includes an order compelling the local government body to recalculate and pay her her correct salary and pension.
The matter will next be heard on February 9, 2026. Henry also seeks an order to compel the corporation to give effect to the April 2020 ruling by Justice Kevin Ramcharan on the salary range she is to be paid.
Her lawsuit contends that the corporation’s failure to calculate her pension and gratuity at the correct salary range was unlawful.
According to Henry, Justice Ramcharan held that her right to equality of treatment by a public authority was infringed, and since his order, the corporation “failed and/or refused to facilitate the reclassification” of her post as acting city assessor. She contended that despite the clear terms of Justice Ramcharan’s order, her pension and gratuity were calculated at a lower salary range, which, her lawsuit maintains, is illegal as it “directly contravenes the court’s orders.”
Henry, who was employed at the corporation for 39 years, retired in June 2023.
She said long before her retirement, the corporation knew about Justice Ramcharan’s ruling and orders “to ensure I would receive my correct pension and gratuity.”
However, she said when she retired, she did not receive her gratuity but only a reduced interim pension of $3,500.
Her attorneys wrote to the corporation in March 2024, and were told in April 2024, her pension and gratuity were being quantified and audited. In July, her claim for assessment of damages came up before a Master of the High Court.
In September, a pre-action letter was sent to the corporation, pointing out that the substantial delay in paying her correct gratuity and pension was unlawful, irrational, in breach of procedural fairness and also in breach of her rights. The corporation responded that her pension and gratuity were calculated at the lower salary range of 41E. She said the response “clearly shows” that a decision was made to disregard Justice Ramcharan’s findings and orders.
Attorneys Kingsley Walesby and Sunil Gopaul Gosine represent Henry.