A career public servant who challenged civil service regulations restricting the annual leave of a public officer charged with indiscipline or misconduct has won her lawsuit against the State.

In a written ruling, Justice Devindra Rampersad declared that regulations 76 and 97 which prevented a public officer from accessing or accumulating leave, other than sick or maternity leave, if they were facing a disciplinary charge were unconstitutional and amounted to the “unlawful infliction of a penalty.”

The judge was ruling in a claim filed by public health inspector 1 Daisy Boodram.

Rampersad said there was “absolutely no reason” why the disciplinary charge process could not be facilitated and scheduled around a public officer’s vacation leave.

“To restrict it in the manner in which regulation 97 has done unfairly targets the officer when there are alternate and less restrictive options open to achieve the same purpose and there is no guarantee of expeditious resolution.”

He agreed there was a need to balance vacation against the efficacious and expeditious resolution of charges. However, he said this did not require a suspension of vacation leave.

Boodram, who became a public health inspector in May 2014, challenged the laying of charges against her, in November 2019, as well as the constitutionality of the regulations which prevented her from accessing her vacation leave to travel to the United States to support her common-law husband who was diagnosed with stage four cancer in 2022.

After the charges against her were referred to a disciplinary tribunal in July 2020, Boodram challenged the allegations and was granted an injunction in June 2021, pending the determination of her challenge.

That matter is currently before Justice Nadia Kangaloo.

In 2022, when she applied for vacation leave, she was told by the Ministry of Health she could not access her vacation leave - some 105 days - because of the pending disciplinary charges.

She then applied for emergency leave which was eventually granted after she threatened further legal action.

In his ruling, Rampersad expressed concern there were parallel matters before another judge concerning the disciplinary charges.

However, Boodram’s attorney, Anand Ramlogan, SC, argued that the matter was of fundamental public importance since it affected the largest single workforce of the public service and these provisions created the potential for violation of their rights.

Attorneys for the State argued that Boodram’s claim over the regulations involving vacation leave was academic since was allowed to proceed on leave from July 11 - September 16, 2022.

The judge also commented on the “savings law clause” although it did not feature in the claim.

“...It was surely meant to be a stopgap in a period of transition into a constitutional democracy. Even though that clause is not the subject of these proceedings, the fact is that the court must consider once and for all whether or not a challenged provision of the laws is constitutional as to leave it unans