Following the decision, former High Court judge Ian Chin will now recover arrears of RM301,768.60, covering the period between July 2016 and February 2022. The amount is inclusive of interest at 5% per annum.

A three-member bench chaired by Justice Nallini Pathmanathan said the judiciary was the third arm of the government and the last bastion for the nation’s citizens.

She said it falls on judges to protect the sanctity of the Federal Constitution for the benefit of the citizenry.

“Who then is to protect the judges? Surely it must fall back on the constitution, therefore Articles 125(7) and (9), when contravened, have to be put right,” said Nallini.

Also on the panel hearing the appeal were Justices Zabariah Yusof and Rhodzariah Bujang.

Nallini said it was evident from the facts of the case that an amendment to the Judges’ Remuneration Act 2014 had resulted in a reduction of the monthly pension of the respondent (Chin) as well as several other retired judges he represented.

She said the amended law violated the constitutionally-protected rights of judges under Articles 125(7) and (9).

Nallini said such contravention attracted the application of Article 4(1), which states that the constitution is supreme. The courts below have correctly applied this very trite law, she added.

“Accordingly the amendment is declared void,” she said.

Nallini said the bench was of the view that the six legal questions framed by the government did not meet the threshold requirement set out in Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 because the proposed appeal did not involve novel points of law and were not matters of public interest.

In a majority ruling handed down last year, the Court of Appeal endorsed the findings of the Kota Kinabalu High Court in 2021 which had entered judgment in Chin’s favour.

Justice P Ravinthran said Article 125(7) guarantees all retired judges a pension.

However, he said, amendments to the Judges’ Remuneration Act 2014 which granted serving judges a 2% annual pension rise based on their last drawn salary was in breach of the constitutional guarantee since it discriminated against those who already retired.

Justice Azimah Omar concurred with Ravinthran.

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 after serving 201 months as a judicial commissioner and High Court judge, named the government and the public services department as defendants in his suit.

He claimed the pension paid to him before 2015 was altered by the government.

On Dec 9, 2022, Justice Leonard David Shim ruled in his favour.

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.