Lawyer Baljit Singh Sidhu, representing former Wisma Putra officer Aminah Ahmad, said his legal team had issued a letter of demand last Friday to the chief secretary and the heads of the public services and pensions departments.
The letter calls for the government to “take immediate action to adjust the pension calculation in accordance with Sections 3 and 6 of the Pension Adjustment Act 1980”.
Baljit said the Federal Court had on June 27 struck down amendments made by virtue of Section 3(2) of Pensions Adjustment (Amended) Act 2013 and reinstated the original wording of Section 3 of the Pension Adjustment Act 1980.
“The government must obey the Federal Constitution and the court’s judgment.
“They should not delay the implementation of the court’s orders as it amounts to an injustice to the pensioners who are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labour,” he added.
The apex court, in a unanimous decision, said both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had acknowledged that the 2013 amendment had put former civil servants in a “less favourable situation” with regard to their entitlement to increments in their pension.
“The risk of a less favourable situation never existed in the original provision,” Chief Judge of Malaya Zabidin Diah said when delivering the court’s decision.
The apex court said the existence of such a risk meant that the amended Section 3(2) breached the constitutional protection accorded to pensioners in Article 147 of the Federal Constitution.
Under Article 147, the law applicable to any pension granted to a member of any of the public services or to his dependents “shall be that in force on the relevant day or any later law not less favourable to the person to whom the award is made”.
The Federal Court went on to order the reinstatement of the original Section 3 of Pensions Adjustment Act 1980.
The ruling came about after Aminah and 56 retired civil servants filed a lawsuit against the public services department (JPA) claiming that Sections 3(2) and 7 of the Pensions Adjustment (Amended) Act violated Article 147.
They were challenging amendments made to the Act by which a new pension scheme was introduced giving pensioners a flat 2% annual increment rate.
Under the scheme in force before the amendment, the pension of government retirees was to be revised based on the prevailing salary of incumbent civil servants in the same grade.