Lawyer Mohd Haaziq Pillay Abdullah said the apex court’s decision would also be recognised as valid law. However, the amendments can be brought to Parliament to be re-tabled for further scrutiny and debate, he said, when contacted.

Yesterday, the Federal Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision that declared the amended pension law as null and void and the five-member bench also dismissed the appeal by the Malaysian government and Public Service Department (PSD) director-general to overturn the appellate court’s decision.  

Chief Judge of Malaya Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah, who delivered the court’s decision said Section 3 and Section 7 of the PAA 2013, which allows a 2 percent increment annually, were less favourable to pensioners and thus contravened Article 147 of the Federal Constitution (which provide for the protection of pension rights).

Meanwhile, lawyer Nizam Bashir Abdul Kariem Bashir shared the same view, saying that if an amended law is found to be null and void by the court, the law applicable before the amendment, which is the Pensions Adjustment Act (PAA) 1980, would come back into force.

“That law (PAA 1980) should be interpreted as existing before the amendments were introduced. “As a result of the Federal Court’s decision, the amendments to the pension law are neither applicable nor exist. The amendments are also in conflict with Article 147 of the Federal Constitution as they have a ‘less favourable’ effect on the recipients of pension,” he said. 

Another lawyer, N Sivananthan, on the other hand, said Parliament can table any new amendments but considering the recent court decision, it would not be appropriate to introduce other amendments for the same purpose. “Such amendments are likely to be declared null and void too,” he said.

One of the lawyers who represented the plaintiff, Aminah Ahmad, in the case, Chin Yan Leng when contacted said the old sections (Section 3 and Section 6 of the PAA 1980) will be revived automatically as per the grounds of judgment by the Federal Court. Meanwhile, Bernama’s efforts to reach the Public Service director-general for comments on the court’s decision are still ongoing.

On Jan 13 last year, the Court of Appeal declared the amended Section 3 and Section 7 which came into effect from Jan 1, 2013, null and void as they contravened Article 147 of the Federal Constitution. Aminah, who retired as a civil servant with the Foreign Ministry, sued the Malaysian government and the PSD director-general in her personal capacity and on behalf of 56 retired members of the public services, claiming that the amendments in the PAA 2013 resulted in a situation less favourable to her as compared with the preceding retirement adjustment scheme under the PAA 1980.

Under the old scheme, the retiree’s pension is revised based on the prevailing salary of incumbent civil servants in that grade. However, the 2013 amendment was introduced based on a flat rate of 2 percent annual increment.