Volunteer Defence Force members sue State over pension

Justice Avason Quinlan-Williams. -

Forty-three members of the Volunteer Defence Force (VDF) have brought a constitutional motion against the State, alleging decades-long violations of their fundamental rights arising from the government’s failure to provide for their pension and terminal benefits.

Justice Avason Quinlan-Williams is presiding over the group’s claim.

The claimants, led by Andy Greaux, contend that the State breached their rights to the enjoyment of property, protection of the law, and equality before the law as guaranteed under sections 4(a) and 4(b) of the Constitution.

They argue that, despite serving as permanent staff within the VDF, a recognised formation of the Trinidad and Tobago Defence Force (TTDF), they were never afforded pension deductions or superannuation benefits comparable to their counterparts in the other formations.

In their filings, the claimants seek several declarations, including that the State’s failure to make statutory deductions for superannuation benefits constitutes unequal treatment and a denial of legal protection. They also request monetary compensation for loss of emoluments, vindicatory damages, and costs.

Attorney Arden Williams, who represents the 43 VDF members, told the High Court that the State’s decades-long failure to enact regulations governing the VDF has left generations of servicemen without pensions or terminal benefits, despite serving as part of the TTDF.

Williams said the case goes beyond the 43 but affects “a wider body.”

“They are paid by the TTDF. They are part of the TTDF. They are paid under the same arrangements, under the same act,” Williams said, pointing out that VDF members were military personnel who perform equivalent duties to regular members of the TTDF.

He noted that the State had offered no evidence to support its claim that the VDF operates under a separate pay structure. The TTDF, he said, consists of four formations — the Regiment, Coast Guard, Air Guard, and the VDF — all of which are paid through the TTDF headquarters’ pay office.

According to Williams, the permanent staff of the VDF are fully engaged, perform comparable duties, and receive equivalent base pay consistent with their rank, yet are denied the pension contributions made for other TTDF members. He added that temporary VDF personnel, unlike permanent staff, are called out only when needed and may hold civilian jobs between assignments.

Williams contended that the State’s failure to deduct contributions to the Consolidated Fund, as required by the Defence (Pensions, Terminal and Other Grants) Regulations, represents clear and intentional discrimination. “There is a presumption of regularity that falls on a public authority such as the Defence Force,” he said, arguing that the government cannot contend officers were responsible for making their own pension payments into the Consolidated Fund.

He argued that the VDF, as part of the military, falls squarely under the Defence Act. “There are no separate pay or separation arrangements for the VDF,” Williams said. “They can be deployed like any other member of the military, but when they retire, they leave with only a handshake.”

Williams described the omission as “irrational, arbitrary neglect,” accusing the State of failing and refusing to act on repeated representations by the claimants. “The minister has failed to make the necessary regulations,” he said. “This failure has caused generations of servicemen to leave without clear terms and conditions, or security after service.”

He added that while regular TTDF members retire earlier and receive full pension and gratuity, the VDF’s permanent staff have served for decades, until age 60, with no benefits. “They are not suing for wages,” Williams said. “They are suing for the entitlements they have been deprived of.”

In their constitutional claim, the group asserts that the absence of specific regulations under Section 239 of the Defence Act governing the VDF has resulted in inequality.

They maintain that members of the VDF perform duties equivalent to regular TTDF personnel but remain excluded from pension entitlements enjoyed by the Coast Guard, Regiment, and Air Guard.

The Attorney General’s office, in its defence, submitted that the group is not entitled to superannuation benefits under the Defence (Pensions, Terminal and Other Grants) Regulations since no deductions are made from their salaries into the Consolidated Fund. The State argues that paying such benefits without contributions would be unlawful and unfair to other service members.

The State also contends that members of the VDF fall outside the scope of the regulations, which define pensionable service as “paid colour service in the force after attaining the age of twenty years.”

The State maintains that any unequal treatment is justified by statutory and administrative distinctions, and that its actions have remained within the limits of the Defence Act.

Mary Davis, who represented the State, said the VDF officers were not entitled to claim terminal benefits, and the minister was not empowered to make such regulations under the Defence Act for the VDF.

The group, however, argue that the State’s failure to enact appropriate regulations promotes unfairness and inequality.

Justice Quinlan-Williams has reserved judgment for delivery on January 29.

Makeda Brown Alfred, Melissa Papoonsingh and Dianna Singh also appear for the State.