A source said the legal principle established by a five-member bench of the apex court may well apply in the two suits.
“There is a high probability of the attorney-general’s chambers not challenging the suits now pending in the High Court and the Court of Appeal,” said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
In the ruling, Chief Judge of Malaya Zabidin Diah said an amendment to Section 3(2) of the Pensions Adjustment (Amended) Act passed in 2013 had put former civil servants in a “less favourable situation” with regard to their entitlement to increments in their pension.
Dismissing an appeal by the director-general of the public services department (JPA) and the government, the bench declared the amendment that came into effect on Jan 1, 2013 null and void as it infringed Article 147 of the Federal Constitution.
The Federal Court went on to order the reinstatement of the original Section 3 of the Pensions Adjustment Act, 1980.
Pensioner Aminah Ahmad and 56 others had initiated a suit in 2017 but lost in the High Court. However, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision.
Under the old scheme, the pension of government retirees was revised based on the prevailing salary of incumbent civil servants in that grade.
However, in 2013, a new scheme was introduced based on an annual increment at a flat rate of 2%.
Earlier this year, the government went to the Court of Appeal in a bid to reverse a High Court ruling which allowed a retired judge to claim a shortfall in pension payments made to him between 2015 and 2022.
Ian Chin, who commenced the suit in the Kota Kinabalu High Court in February last year, sought several declarations, which were allowed.
On Dec 9, 2022, Justice Leonard David Shim declared the amended Judges’ Remuneration Act 2014 void and inconsistent with Article 125(7) of the constitution.
He ordered that Chin be compensated RM301,768.60, the shortfall in the pension paid to him between July 2016 and February 2022. This amount is inclusive of 5% interest.
Meanwhile, about 30 retired judges and eight dependants filed a suit early last year, naming then prime minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob, the Cabinet, JPA and the government for failing to give them the appropriate adjustment to their pension.
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.
The case is presently before Justice Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh at the Kuala Lumpur High Court.