Court Advises Mediation In Retired Judges Pension Lawsuit

---

 


Thirty-five retired judges and dependents and the government are now exploring the feasibility of settling a suit over alleged failure to increase pension payouts.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court suggested this to all parties during case management of the lawsuit this morning.
When met by the media today, lawyer Iqbal Harith Liang confirmed that judge Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh recommended settlement to both parties' legal teams.
"The court suggested for parties to explore the possibility of mediation," said Iqbal, who is holding a watching brief for the Malaysian Bar in the legal matter.
The plaintiff former judges and dependents were represented by counsel Christopher Leong, while the government (who is one of four defendants) was represented by federal counsel M Kogilambigai.
Iqbal said that the court today has fixed March 21 for online case management to update it on the status of the possible mediation to settle the legal action.
On Jan 24, the retired judges and dependents filed the originating summons against the Malaysian government, the prime minister (who is not named), cabinet ministers (who are not named), and the Public Services director-general (who is not named).
Judge Wan Ahmad Farid Wan SallehMeanwhile, in relation to the case management today, Iqbal also said that Wan Ahmad Farid informed parties that he has family relations with one of the 35 plaintiffs.
The plaintiff in question is retired Court of Appeal judge Wan Adnan @ Wan Addinan Muhammad.
Iqbal said that the plaintiffs' lawyers raised no objection to Wan Ahmad Farid to continue to preside over the suit, while the government's legal team sought time to take instructions on whether to accept or object to the judge from further hearing the matter.
Calculation of pensions changed
According to cause papers of the main suit, the plaintiffs contended among others, that the defendants failed to prescribe, via an order in the Gazette, an appropriate higher percentage than two percent annually to the pensions and other benefits to each plaintiff, in line with Section 15B(2) of the Judges Remuneration Act 1971.
The plaintiffs contended that the defendants had effected an amendment to Section 15B, which allegedly changed the calculation of the pensions.
They claimed that initially, the unamended Section 15B would calculate the pensions based on an automatic adjustment to correspond to the salary increase of serving judges.
The plaintiffs, however, claimed that when the amendment to the provision (Section 15B(1)) was made and took effect on July 1, 2015, it resulted in the pensions being adjusted annually by a two percent increment, while not even taking into account or reflecting the increase in serving judges' salaries.
They further claimed that this purported failure has "continuously altered the pension and other benefits of each of the plaintiffs to their disadvantage" in breach of Article 125 (7) of the Federal Constitution, read with Article 125(9) of the said Constitution.
Article 125 of the Federal Constitution deals with the tenure of office and remuneration of judges of the Federal Court.
"The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the anomalous and unconstitutional situation which has been brought about through the non-adjustment of their constitutionally-protected right to advantageous adjustment of their pensions pursuant to Articles 125(7) and 125(9) of the Federal Constitution, as embodied in the Judges' Remuneration Act 1971.
"These retrospective amendments have adversely altered the pensions of the plaintiffs to their detriment and disadvantage owing to the non-implementation of parts of the amended provisions, in outright breach of Articles 125(7) and 125(9) of the Federal Constitution," claimed the plaintiffs.
They contended that the present lawsuit was filed following the government disregarding their letter of demand dated Sept 17 last year.
They explained that the legal letter had sought for the defendants to pay to each plaintiff, within two weeks beginning Sept 17 last year, "one lump sum the amount each of them is entitled to".
Among the reliefs, the plaintiffs sought through the suit is an order for the prime minister and the cabinet ministers to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to prescribe, via an order in the Gazette, the appropriate higher percentage of increment than two percent annually to the pension and other benefits.
The former judges and dependents also seek, among others, pre-judgment interest on the amount awarded at five percent, to be calculated from July 1, 2015, until the date of judgment; as well as a five interest on the amount awarded, to be calculated from the date of judgment until full settlement. - Mkini

---