The plaintiffs – 28 former judges who served in the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court of Malaya and the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak and seven dependents of deceased judges – are seeking several declarations from the High Court.
Under the Judges’ Remuneration (Amendment of First and Fifth Schedules) Regulations 2016, the pension and other benefits of judges and judicial commissioners is adjusted annually by 2%.
The plaintiffs want a declaration that this is in breach of Article 125(7) of the Federal Constitution read with Article 125(9) and that their pension and benefits should be adjusted according to the current salaries and benefits of serving judges.
Article 125(7) states that the remuneration and other terms of office, including the pension rights of judges, shall not be altered to their disadvantage after appointment.
The plaintiffs also want the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (the government) to repeal the Judges’ Remuneration (Amendment of First and Fifth Schedules) Regulations 2016 and put in new provisions on revising the pension of retired judges.
They said they had to seek legal redress as the government had refused to entertain their notice of demand sent in September last year.
The originating summons was filed in the High Court here last week and named the government, the prime minister, the Cabinet and the director-general of public service as the respondents.
Among the plaintiffs are former Court of Appeal president Alauddin Mohd Sheriff and former chief judges of Malaya Haidar Mohamed Nor and Siti Norma Yaakob.
Haidar has also filed an affidavit in support of the suit.
Two of the judges, who declined to be identified, but named in the suit, confirmed with FMT that they had resorted to the class action.
“Our action is similar to the declarations sought and obtained from a recent Court of Appeal ruling,” a judge said.
On Jan 13, the appellate court declared that an amendment to the Pensions Adjustment (Amendment) Act which came into effect from January 2013 was unconstitutional.
Judge Darryl Goon, who delivered the judgment, said the amendment violated Article 147 of the Constitution as any new pension scheme could not be less favourable than the earlier pension scheme.
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.
Pensioner Aminah Ahmad and 56 others employed in the public service had filed the action in 2017, claiming that the new scheme was potentially less favourable than the previous one.
They named the government and director-general of public service as the defendants.
We are live on Telegram, subscribe here for breaking news and the latest announcements.