Govt files appeal to restore legality of amended pension law

 

The government is challenging the Court of Appeal ruling that declared as unconstitutional an amended pension law which came into effect in 2013.

PUTRAJAYA: The government has gone to the Federal Court to challenge last month’s Court of Appeal ruling that declared as unconstitutional an amended pension law which came into effect in 2013.

It has filed four legal questions as a prerequisite to obtain leave of the apex court to have the merits of the case heard.

The applicants have also included the public service director-general while the respondents are pensioner Aminah Ahmad and 56 others who initiated a suit in 2017.

Court documents sighted by FMT revealed that senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan filed an affidavit two weeks ago in support of the leave application.

The legal papers have also been served on lawyers representing the respondents.

In allowing an appeal by Aminah and the others on Jan 13, a three-member Court of Appeal bench held that the amended Pensions Adjustment Act, which came into effect on Jan 1, 2013, was unconstitutional.

Judge Darryl Goon, who wrote the judgment, said the amendment violated Article 147 of the Federal Constitution as any new pension scheme cannot be less favourable than the old.

Under the old scheme, the pension of government retirees was revised based on the prevailing salary of incumbent civil servants in that grade.

However, from 2013, a new scheme was introduced based on a flat rate of 2% annual increment.

After the Court of Appeal ruling, 28 former judges and seven dependents of deceased judges filed a similar suit, calling for their pension payment to be adjusted based on the current salaries of serving judges.

Their problem arose when the government, in 2015, made a salary revision for judges providing a higher pension plus a 2% annual increment for those who retired after the amendment.

However, those who retired before 2015 continued to receive pensions based on their old salary plus a 2% annual rise.

The plaintiffs now want a declaration that the amendment is in breach of Article 125 that states that the judges’ remuneration and other terms of office, including pension rights, should not be altered to their disadvantage after appointment. - FMT