The High Court earlier this month ordered the National Insurance Scheme (NIS) to pay a monthly pension to a former Guyana Sugar Cor-poration (GuySuCo) employee who had challenged the Scheme’s claim that he did not have enough contributions to qualify.
In an April 11th judgment, Justice Sandil Kissoon ordered the NIS to forthwith pay Khemraj Boodram his pension and all accrued interest retroactive to December 29th, 2011—the date of Boodram’s 60th birthday.
Additionally, the court ordered the NIS to credit Boodram with 208 contributions, which his former employer, GuySuCo, failed to remit to the Scheme on his behalf, during his tenure with the company which spanned January 1985 to December 1989.
In his action filed against the NIS, Boodram (the applicant) said that he had been gainfully employed in insurable employment during the periods 1969-1976 and then again from 1979-2014 and had at all times paid his NIS contributions which were deducted from his earnings.
He said that he had paid in excess of 750 contributions and having attained the age of 60, became qualified to receive his monthly old age pension which he applied for in 2012.
In court documents seen by this newspaper, Boodram said that after applying for his pension, he was informed by the Respondent/NIS that it had no record of contributions for him for the period 1978-1994, which is inclusive of his years of employment with GuySuCo from January 1985 to December 1989.
He said he was further informed by the NIS that his total number of contributions as reflected in its records were 724 contributions, but that 53 of those contributions were deducted and paid to him after he turned 60, thus leaving a remaining 671 contributions which only entitled him to a grant.
He said that thereafter, taking the decision that he had not made sufficient contributions to qualify for a monthly pension, NIS instead, gave him a grant of $355,215, in lieu of a monthly pension.
Boodram said he then appealed the NIS’s decision to the Appeal Tribunal and was advised by the Scheme to obtain his record of employment from GuySuCo as a means of substantiating his employment with the company.
According to Boodram, his quest to obtain the necessary records saw GuySuCo responding that estate closures, records transfer from one estate to another after the closures, and complaints of unhealthy conditions in which records were kept, prevented staff from making searches to retrieve the relevant documentation.
Having communicated these difficulties to NIS, Boodram said that he was further advised by the entity to obtain testimonies from two of his former workmates, who would attest to his employment for the period.
Boodram said he followed this directive and obtained the two testimonials as evidence that he had been employed by GuySuCo as a welder for the period 1985 to 1986.
Justice Kissoon would, in his ruling, deem the two testimonials as being good and sufficient proof of Boodram’s employment with GuySuCo.
Boodram said that on April 15th, 2015, he submitted Statutory Declara-tions to NIS arguing that at the very minimum, 104 contributions ought to have been credited to his record of contributions.
This, he contended, would have taken his total number of contributions from 671 to 775.
In light of all this, Boodram expressed dissatisfaction with the Appeal Tribunal’s September 19th, 2018 ruling in favour of the NIS, which underscored that he had insufficient contributions to qualify for a monthly pension.
He took issue too, with what he said was the Tribunal’s failure to provide him with a statement of reason for its decision.
It was following the Tribunal’s decision, that the applicant mounted a challenge against the NIS before the High Court.
In its affidavit in defence, however, the NIS contended that Boodram, in his application for old age benefit, alleged that while he had been employed with GuySuCo for the period 1985-1986, made reference to being employed with the company for a greater period.
According to the NIS, the applicant failed to produce any record of service verifying his claims, but instead produced testimonials from two alleged former employees, which it said were not sufficient.
Refuting claims made by Boodram, NIS argued that one of the two deponents who submitted the alleged testimonials on his behalf could not be found in its records and that since this was the case, his declarations could not be verified nor his employment with GuySuCo for the period claimed.
As far as the NIS was concerned, such statutory declarations gave no support to Boodram’s employment and as such, contributions for the disputed periods ought not to have been credited to his records.
The NIS was of the view that in the absence of the amount of years needed for sufficient contributions which Boodram did not have, he should not have been awarded any pension. It maintained that he did not have a minimum of 750 contributions.
According to the NIS, having amassed only 724 contributions, 53 of which could not be used in the computation of his benefits as they were paid after his attainment of age 60, Boodram ought to have only been entitled to the grant which he was paid.
Boodram was represented by attorneys Christopher Ram and Christopher Thompson.
The NIS, meanwhile, was represented by attorney Randalyn Rowe.
