Arguing that he was unlawfully discharged from the Guyana Defence Force (GDF) by the Chief of Staff to deprive him of his pension and other financial benefits, former captain Rawle Blake has sued the state.
Blake filed a lawsuit against the state for those payments and other reimbursements, as well as for more than half a million dollars in aggravated damages for breach of rights.
Stating that he knows of no other reason, the army officer contends in court documents seen by this newspaper that he was sacked because the State does not want to pay him his benefits.
In the court action, which lists the Attorney General as defendant, Blake, (the claimant) said there is no previous indiscipline or any particular breach committed in his military career warranting dismissal or for him to be court martialed.
A member of the force for 16 years until his discharge last April, Blake said he was discharged from the force in the public’s interest by the Chief of Staff.
He, however, said he has no recollection of previously being disciplined nor of any current particular breach he has committed, which carries dismissal or requires court martial proceedings.
According to Blake, the reason given by the Chief of Staff for his dismissal was that it was in the “public’s interest.”
The claimant said that the State had demonstrated a disingenuous, but egregious method of attempting to superimpose irrelevant and extraneous conditions for “discharge in public interest” as a defence to unconstitutionally deprive him of his pension and other financial benefits.
Though providing no specifics, Blake said that during his career he was punished “for whatsoever perceived breaches” and that those cannot now be used in these current proceedings as it would be prejudicial and inadmissible.
The army captain said that he was never court martialed though a request was made, while noting that he was “railroaded” by an unconstitutional process of being forced to resign or face dismissal.
His discharge, he argues, was unconstitutional, while he specifically underscores that it was without any benefits even though he satisfies the superannuation requirements for pension and gratuity benefits.
Blake contends through his attorney, Patrice Henry, that his discharge was discriminatory in nature and deliberately done to cause himself and family undue financial hardship.
On this point, he advanced that if the dismissal is not reversed, it would be a travesty and result in a miscarriage of justice.
In a tabulation of the compensation he is seeking, the claimant said he earned a basic salary of about $200,000 per month as a captain in the army, and while he is currently seeking employment, has so far been unsuccessful in securing any. He said it has been difficult finding comparable employment and is yet to receive even a temporary job with less payment, while pointing out that he has utility bills to pay and other financial obligations, in addition to having a wife and four minor children to maintain.
He wants his pension and gratuity, which he says are rights owed to him, as well as aggravated damages for breach of his rights.
For the losses and damages suffered, Blake is asking the court to grant aggravated damages in excess of $500,000 for his wrongful discharge and general damages in excess of 40 months’ salary, which he says represents the period it would take him to be re-employed in a similar, alternative or comparable capacity.
Blake also wants the court to order that he be paid full salary from April 1st, 2019, when he was discharged, up until the date a decision is rendered, as well as that he be paid his pension and gratuity.
He is also asking the court for an order that he be compensated in lieu of annual leave, leave passage and annual Christmas bonus.
The claimant said that in accordance to law, the money judgments are to attract interest calculated at 6% per annum from the date of filing up until judgment; and at 4% from the date of judgment, up until judgment is fully paid.
He also wants “substantial” and “significant” court costs in excess of $400,000 as well as any further order which the court deems just to grant.
