Imagine dedicating nearly four decades of your life to your career, only to face a frustrating battle for what you're rightfully owed. A retired city assessor is now taking legal action against the San Fernando City Corporation. The core of the issue? The corporation allegedly failed to properly calculate her pension and gratuity.
This all stems from a 2020 High Court decision. The court ruled that Heidi Henry, the retired assessor, was entitled to be treated equally to her counterpart at the Port of Spain City Corporation. This meant she should receive her pension and gratuity based on salary range 59D.
Justice Frank Seepersad has given Henry the go-ahead to challenge the corporation's actions. She's seeking an order that would force them to recalculate and pay her the correct amount. The next hearing is scheduled for February 9, 2026. Henry is also asking the court to compel the corporation to comply with a ruling from April 2020 by Justice Kevin Ramcharan, which specified the salary range she should be paid.
Her lawsuit argues that the corporation's failure to calculate her pension and gratuity correctly is unlawful. Justice Ramcharan had previously determined that her right to equal treatment had been violated. But here's where it gets controversial: despite this clear order, Henry claims the corporation has not reclassified her position and calculated her pension and gratuity at a lower salary range. This, she argues, directly contradicts the court's orders.
Henry, who dedicated 39 years to the corporation, retired in June 2023. She states that the corporation was aware of Justice Ramcharan's ruling long before her retirement, yet she didn't receive her full gratuity upon retirement, only a reduced interim pension of $3,500.
Her attorneys contacted the corporation in March 2024, and were told in April 2024 that 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 the delay in paying her correct gratuity and pension. The corporation responded that her pension and gratuity were calculated at the lower salary range of 41E. This, according to Henry, demonstrates a clear disregard for the court's findings and orders. Her attorneys, Kingsley Walesby and Sunil Gopaul Gosine, are representing her in this case.
What do you think about this situation? Do you believe the corporation is acting fairly? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
