However, Putrajaya has to obtain leave of the apex court before the merits of the appeal can be heard.

Senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan said the government had submitted six legal questions last month which it says justify the grant of leave to appeal.

Under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, an applicant must satisfy the apex court that the proposed appeal contains novel legal or constitutional questions of public importance which are being raised for the first time.

FMT understands the Attorney-General’s Chambers has written to the Court of Appeal to obtain the full written grounds of both the majority and minority rulings delivered on May 7.

In the Court of Appeal, Justices P Ravinthran and Azimah Omar endorsed the findings of a High Court in Kota Kinabalu two years ago which favoured former justice Ian Chin.

Ravinthran said Article 125(7) of the Federal Constitution guarantees all retired judges a pension.

However, he said, the amended Judges’ Remuneration Act 2014 granting serving judges a 2% annual pension rise based on their last drawn salary was in breach of the constitutional guarantee.

He said the court was also bound by the legal principle established in a similar case brought by 56 retired civil servants against the government.

On June 27 last year, the Federal Court held that a 2013 amendment violated a constitutional provision on pensions.

In a unanimous decision, the court said a 2013 amendment to the Pensions Adjustment Act 1980 had put former civil servants in a “less favourable situation” with regard to their entitlement to increments in their pension.

As a result, it said, the amended Section 3(2) breached the protection accorded to pensioners by Article 147 of the Federal Constitution.

Justice Lim Chong Fong, who dissented, agreed with the majority that pension benefits are a right protected under the constitution.

However, he said Article 8 of the constitution allows for discrimination based on the doctrine of reasonable classification between serving and retired judges.

Lim said the salary revision in 2015 was intended to attract lawyers to join the judiciary, whereas the 2% pension adjustment was to address economic inflation.

Chin, who retired in 2008, commenced the suit in the Kota Kinabalu High Court in February 2022, naming the government and the public services department as defendants.

He sought several declarations.

Chin, who served 201 months as a judicial commissioner and High Court judge, claimed that the pension paid to him before 2015 was altered by the government.

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 held that provisions in the constitution that provide for the terms of office, including the remuneration and pension rights of judges, cannot be altered to their disadvantage after appointment.

Shim also ruled that the government had violated Article 125(7) of the constitution by failing to pay the monthly pension due to Chin according to a prescribed formula.

He ordered that Chin be compensated RM301,768.60, being the shortfall in the pension paid to him between July 2016 and February 2022. The amount was inclusive of interest at 5% per annum.

The High Court also revoked a 2% annual increment on the pension paid to all retired judges, irrespective of whether they retired before or after 2015.

The issue 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.