Lawyer Christopher Leong said the proposal, without prejudice, was sent to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) on July 1.

“They have replied and requested us to wait until July 29 to enable them to obtain instructions from the respondent (government),” said Leong when updating judge Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh during case management.

Leong, a member of the legal team representing 28 former judges and seven widows of former judges, said he had no objection to the AGC’s request.

Senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan confirmed that the proposal had been received and forwarded to the government.

“However, the government might submit a counter proposal,” he said.

The judge then fixed another case management for Aug 16.

The plaintiffs, in their suit filed early this year, said they were seeking legal redress as the government had refused to entertain their notice of demand sent in September last year.

The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that their pensions should be adjusted annually, based on the salaries of current judges.

The problem arose when the government made a salary revision in 2015 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 salaries plus a 2% annual rise.

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