PROFESSOR DR. MANOHAR A/L ARUMUGAM v Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia (WA-24NCvC-3051-08/2024)

JABATAN PERKHIDMATAN AWAM MALAYSIA … RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] This is the Applicant’s Originating Summons (OS) for the following prayers-a. Bahawa i.berdasarkan dan menurut surat-surat yang dikeluarkan oleh Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia bertarikh 24hb Disember 2010 dan 7hb Julai 2012 agregat perkhidmatan Pemohon yang perlu diambil kira bagi maksud 30/07/2025 12:14:28 WA-24NCvC-3051-08/2024 Kand. 53 kiraan pencen dan ganjaran Pemohon yang telah bersara pada 3hb April 2024 adalah dari 1hb Ogos 1991 hingga 3hb April 2024 iaitu 391 bulan; ii.berdasarkan Pemohon diberi taraf “berpencen” dan pelepasan berizin maka keseluruhan tempoh perkhidmatan Pemohon iaitu dari 1hb Ogos 1991 hingga 3hb April 2024 iaitu 391 bulan perlu diambil bagi menentukan agregat perkhidmatan Pemohon; iii.memandangkan wang caruman bahagian majikan bagi keseluruhan tempoh perkhidmatan iaitu dari 1hb Ogos 1991 hingga 3hb April 2024 iaitu 391 bulan dikeluarkan daripada Kumpulan Wang Simpananan Pekerja (KWSP) dimasukkan di dalam Kumpulan Wang Amanah Pencen (KWAP) maka tempoh yang perlu diagregatkan bagi kiraan pencen dan ganjaran kepada Pemohon ialah dari 1hb Ogos 1991 hingga 3hb April 2024 iaitu 391 bulan; iv.memandangkan surat bertarikh 24hb Disember 2010 yang dikeluarkan oleh Responden Kedua kepada Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja-Pekerja mengarahkan KWSP mengembalikan caruman majikan di dalam KWSP bagi tempoh 1hb Ogos 1991 hingga 6hb Jun 2005 dikembalikan kepada Kumpulan Wang Pesaraan (KWAP) maka tempoh 1hb Ogos 1991 hingga 6hb Jun 2005 harus diambil kira dan/atau diagregatkan sebagai tempoh kiraan wang pencen dan ganjaran Pemohon; atau secara alternatif b. Bahawa i. Responden-Responden membayar gantirugi sebagai pampasan yang senilai/setara (equivalent) supaya Pemohon tidak mengalami kerugian disebabkan kekurangan amaun pencen dan ganjaran akibat pembatalan pada awal tahun ini, keputusan-keputusan yang dibuat oleh Responden lebih kurang 13 tahun yang lalu iaitu pada tahun 2010 dan 2012. Pemohon tidak mendapat peluang membuat perancangan kewangan untuk persaraan kerana beliau baru dapat tahu perkara ini apabila Pemohon menerima surat bertarikh 13hb Mac 2024 yang diterima oleh Pemohon pada 16hb April 2024. ii. Gantirugi tersebut ditaksir oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini; iii. Responden-Responden membayar faedah di atas kadar 5% setahun atau di atas satu kadar yang ditetapkan oleh Mahkamah bagi gantirugi tersebut dari tarikh pemfailan Saman Pemula ini hingga penyelesaian sepenuhnya;

Bahawa jumlah gaji bulanan Pemohon yang diambil kira bagi maksud menentukan pencen serta ganjaran ialah RM 23,435.19;

Pemohon dibayar faedah diatas kadar 5% setahun bagi tempoh bagi jumlah tambahan yang perlu dibayar oleh Responden-Responden bagi wang pencen dan ganjaran sehingga penyelesaian bayaran kepada Pemohon;

Bahawa Responden-Responden membayar gantirugi sebagai pampasan yang senilai/setara (equivalent) supaya Pemohon tidak mengalami kerugian akibat tindakan Responden-Responden untuk mengarahkan bayaran caruman majikan dikembalikan kepada KWAP dan Pemohon tiada kehilangan keahlian di KWSP serta segala faedah-faedah (benefits) tahunan yang KWSP akan membayar sekiranya wang yang dicarum diKWSP oleh majikan Pemohon dan juga dari caruman potongan gaji Pemohon jika tidak di keluarkan dan jumlah tersebut ditaksir oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini;

Bahawa Pemohon dibayar gantirugi bagi tekanan mental serta keterukan (aggravation) yang dialami oleh Pemohon akibat tindakan

Kos permohonan dibayar oleh Responden kepada Pemohon;

Lain-lain relif yang wajar dan difikir suaimanfaat oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini;

Bahawa Pemohon diberi kebebasan untuk membuat permohonan lanjutan, jika perlu. BRIEF FACTS [2] The Applicant was employed by the Ministry of Health (MOH), Government of Malaysia as a Medical Officer from 01.08.1991 and contributed to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF). [3] Thereafter, the Applicant was offered the post of Associate Professor by Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) and in accordance with Pekeliling Perkhidmatan No. 2/1980 (PP 2/1980) applied for pelepasan dengan izin from the Government of Malaysia. Upon obtaining the pelepasan dengan izin, the Applicant joined UPM from 07.06.2005 until his retirement on 03.04.2024. [4] On 08.06.2006 the Applicant was offered to either be emplaced on the pension scheme or continue contributing to EPF. The Applicant chose to be emplaced on the pension scheme. The Applicant was approved as a pensionable employee with effect from 01.10.2010. [5] There were two (2) letters dated 24.12.2010 and 09.07.2012 from Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam (JPA) which confirmed that his service from 01.08.1991 will be taken into account, for purposes of calculating his pension when he retires from service and the contributions paid to EPF was to be paid by EPF to the Pension Fund. [6] Accordingly, the letter dated 24.12.2010 states the following- “…… pada 7 Jun 2005 beliau telah meletakkan jawatan dan diberi pelepasan dengan izin untuk membolehkan beliau dilantik sebagai Profesor Madya Gred DU53 di Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). Beliau telah disahkan jawatan pada 12 Jun 2006 dan diberi pekerja bertaraf pencen pada 1 Oktober 2008. Ini bermakna, tempoh perkhidmatan beliau semasa diKKM (1 Ogos 1991 hingga 6 Jun 2005) boleh diagrigatkan dengan tempoh perkhidmatan sekarang (mulai 7 Jun 2005) dengan syart caruman syer Kerajaan dikembalikan kepada Kumpulan Wang Pesaraan (Diperbadankan) atau KWAP.” [7] While the letter dated 09.07.2012 states- “2. Dimaklumkan bahawa tempoh perkhidmatan Profesor Madya Dr. Manohar a/l/ Arumugam semasa berkhidmat sebagai Pegawai Perubatan A15 mulai 1 Ogos 1991 hingga 6 Jun 2005 di Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia boleh diagregatkan dengan tempoh perkhidmatan sebagai Profesor Madya Gred DU58 53 di Universiti Putra Malaysia mulai 7 Jun 2005 dengan syarat caruman syer Kerajaan mulai 1 Ogos 1991 hingga 6 Jun 2005 dikembalikan kepada Kumpulan Wang Pesaraan [Diperbadankan] (KWAP).

Kelulusan percantuman perkhidmatan lepas ini adalah kerana pegawai ini telah memenuhi 2 keperluan asas bagi menetapkan pilihan opsyen faedah persaraan iaitu: i) Dilepaskan dengan izin oleh majikan/pihak berkausa melantik; dan ii) Perlantikan berikutnya disyaratkan tempoh percubaan dan peluang memilih sekali opsyen seksyen 6A Akta 239.

Keputusan ini hendaklah dicatatkan ke dalam Kenyataan Perkhidmatan penama dengan menggunakan rujukan surat ini. Surat kelulusan ini hendaklah disertakan bersama-sama dokumen persaraan apabila bersara kelak.” [8] Furthermore, the Service Record of the Applicant (Kenyataan Perkhidmatan) dated 09.07.2012 has the following entries: “PERKHIDMATAN LEPAS (AWAM) Diluluskan perkhidmatan lepas bagi tempoh dari 01.08.1991 hingga 06.06.2005 sebagai Pegawai Perubatan A15 di Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia untuk diagregatkan dengan perkhidmatan sekarang mulai 07.06.2005 dengan syarat caruman syer kerajaan mulai 01.08.1991 hingga 06.06.2005 dikembalikan kepada Kumpulan Wang Pesaraan [diperbadankan] (KWAP). Pegawai diluluskan pelepasan dengan izin di Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia” [9] Consequently, on 28.12.2010, EPF paid the sum of RM 227,157.50 to Kumpulan Wang Persaraan (Pension Fund). [10] The Applicant then opted to retire on 03.04.2024. The pension calculation as in Kelulusan Faedah Pencen was from the period of 07.06.2005 until 02.04.2024 whereby the period of service from

01.08.1991 until 06.06.2005 was not taken into account for the purpose of calculating the Applicant’s pension benefits. [11] Subsequently, dissatisfied with the pension benefits calculation, the Applicant (together with his solicitor) took the matter up to JPA. They attended a meeting with JPA on 04.07.2024 and that the matter will be referred to the Director General of JPA. [12] After the meeting on 04.07.2024, the Pension Fund had on 06.07.2024 paid a sum of RM 163,785.92 to the Applicant being his contributions to EPF. [13] Later, by a letter dated 30.07.2024, JPA informed that JPA would maintain the calculation made. [14] Arising from the above, the Applicant filed this legal proceeding. Applicant’s Contention [15] The Applicant contended that he is entitled to pension benefits (including gratuity payment) upon his retirement on 03.04.2024 as he was employed by MOH and subsequently by UPM and remained with UPM until retirement. [16] The Applicant also contended that, based on Regulation 3 read with Regulation 4, Statutory and Local Authorities Pension Regulations 1990 (PU(A) 134/1990), the period of service that can be counted for the purpose of pension, gratuity or other benefits must be taken into account, starting from the date of the Applicant’s appointment at MOH on 01.08.1991 until the date the Applicant retires from UPM on 03.04.2024. [17] Therefore, the Applicant further contended that the total period of service is 391 months and the Applicant is entitled to a monthly pension of RM 14,061.11 and gratuity payment of RM 718,394.586. [18] The Applicant also contended that his final salary is RM 23,435.19 and that the amount calculated by JPA of RM 8,609.31 as his monthly pension and a gratuity payment of RM 387,419.28 as incorrect. Respondents’ Contention [19] The Respondents contended that the Applicant had two different service records. The first service was with MOH where the Applicant had opted for the EPF scheme. Therefore, the Applicant was not subject to pension benefits under Section 6A (4) of the Pension Act 1980 (Act 227) and that the Applicant’s situation is not subject to Regulation 6, Pension Regulations 1980 (PU(A) 176/1980). The Applicant’s length of service is only from 07.06.2005 which was informed by the Respondents to the Applicant by a letter dated 03.03.2024. [20] The Respondents also contended that Service Circular No. 2 of 1980 and other Service Circulars referred by the Appellant, do not apply to the Applicants as he is not under a pension scheme. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS [21] This Court finds that the central issue is the number of years that the Applicant is entitled, under the pension scheme, of his service. [22] The Appellant contended that Regulation 3 and the Pelepasan Dengan Izin recorded in the Kenyataan Perkhidmatan on 26.04.2005, as required by Regulation 5(g), and obtained by the Applicant pursuant to Pekeliling Perkhidmatan No. 2/1980, that the Applicant’s total period of service for pension calculation should be from 01.08.1991 until his retirement date of 03.04.2024. [23] In this regard, despite the Statutory and Local Authorities Pensions Act 1990 having a similar provision with the Pensions Act on section 6A

(4), this Court is of the considered view that the provision does not apply. Section 6A is applicable to an employee who has not contributed to the Pension Fund at all but retires from service as an EPF contributor in which case, upon retirement, the only entitlement is to the contributions made to EPF but that is not the case here. [24] Section 6A of the Statutory & Local Authorities Act 1980 reads as follows- “Exercise of option 6A. (1) An employee appointed on or after the commencement of this section shall, before being confirmed in his appointment, be entitled to opt for the Employees Provident Fund Scheme.

The option under subsection (1) shall be made to the appropriate appointing authority in such manner as may be determined by the pensions authority.

The exercise of the option by an employee under this section shall take effect on his being confirmed in his appointment and shall thereupon be irrevocable.

Where an employee opts for the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, the provisions of this Act, except this section and section 26, shall not apply to such employee.

An employee who opts for the Employees Provident Fund Scheme shall retire from the service of a statutory or local authority on attaining the age of sixty years.

Subsection (5) shall not apply to an employee who was appointed before 1 January 2012 and had been given an option before such date and had not opted for the compulsory age of retirement of sixty years.

The compulsory retirement age for an employee who had not opted for the compulsory retirement age of sixty years referred to in Laws Of Malaysia ACT 239 10 subsection (5A) shall remain either fifty-five years or fifty-six or fifty-eight years as the age that he had opted before 1 January 2012.

The option for the compulsory age of retirement of sixty years exercised by an employee for the purpose of subsections (5) and (5A) shall be irrevocable.

An appropriate authority may, with the consent of the pensions authority, require an employee who opts for the Employees Provident Fund Scheme to retire from the service of a statutory or local authority in any circumstances referred to in paragraphs 10(5)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and

or section 11.

Notwithstanding subsection (3), an employee who had opted for the Employees Provident Fund Scheme before 1 January 2009 and has been confirmed in his appointment before such date shall be given an option to opt for pension, gratuity or other benefit granted under this Act.

The option made under subsection (6A) shall be irrevocable on 1 February 2009 and the provisions of this Act shall apply to the employee from that date.

Where an employee has opted for pension, gratuity or other benefit pursuant to subsection (6A) and dies before the option becomes irrevocable pursuant to subsection (6B), the employee is deemed to be a pensionable employee and the provisions of this Act shall apply to him from the date of his death.” (Emphasis Added) [25] This Court finds that section 6A on the exercise of option, particularly section 6A (4), is not applicable in this case as contended by the Respondent but rather section 6A (6A) is applicable which section clearly provides that - “Notwithstanding subsection (3), an officer who had opted for the Employees Provident Fund Scheme before 1 January 2009 and has been confirmed in his appointment before such date shall be given an option to opt for pension, gratuity or other benefit granted under this act.” [26] In this regard, section 6A (3) provides that “The exercise of the option by an officer under this section shall take effect on his being confirmed in his appointment and shall thereupon be irrevocable.” [27] As such, this Court is of the considered view that where Section 6A(6A) applies, Section 6A(4) is not applicable. [28] This Court agrees with the Applicant that Section 6A (4) only applies to:

An employee who retires from service as an EPF contributor – The Applicant did not retire as an EPF contributor; and

An employee who is confirmed in service after 01.01.2009 – This too does not apply to the Applicant as the he was confirmed on 08.06.2006. [29] On the other hand, section 6A (6A) requires that the following to be satisfied-a. The employee has been confirmed before 01.01.2009 – the Applicant was confirmed on 08.06.2006 as such the Applicant has satisfied this requirement; and b. The employee must be given an option to opt for the pension scheme – The Applicant as the employee, had opted for the pension scheme and this is indorsed in his employment records on 08.06.2006. [30] Based on the facts-a. The Applicant has been in service since 01.08.1991 up until his retirement 02.04.2024; b. The Applicant was confirmed in service on 08.06.2006; and c. The Applicant, having first opted for the EPF scheme, was later offered the pension scheme and he exercised that option on 08.06.2006. [31] Accordingly, Section 6A (4) cannot apply to the Applicant. Therefore, the Respondents reliance on Section 6A (4) is misconceived. For purposes of “reckonable service, the effective date that the Applicant commenced employment is 01.08.1991 and is within the ambit of section 6A(6A) and thus, section 6A (4) does not apply. [32] It was also observed that JPA had in the two (2) letters dated 24.12.2010 and 09.07.2012, confirmed that the duration of service to be taken into account for the Applicant’s pension benefits is from 01.08.1991. [33] Obviously, the contributions to EPF has been paid by JPA to the Pension Fund. Hence, the contributions to the Pension Fund for the Applicant is from 01.08.1991. [34] The Respondents in a letter dated 13.3.2024 had informed the Applicant that the letter dated 9.7.2012 had been revoked. This Court is surprised that such a letter was issued after a period of almost 12 years. [35] Furthermore, this Court is guided by the case of Phang Swee Kim v. Beh I Hock [1964] 1 MLRA 388, where the Federal Court has cited with approval the case of Robertson v Minister of Pensions [1949] 1 KB 227 and held- “In the case of Robertson v. Minister of Pensions [1949] 1 KB 227 the headnotes reads: The appellant, a serving army officer, wrote to the War Office regarding a disability of his and received a reply, dated 8 April 1941, stating: 'Your disability has been accepted as attributable to military service." Relying on that assurance he forebore to obtain an independent medical opinion on his own behalf. The Minister of Pensions later decided that the appellant's disability was not attributed to war service. Held: (i) that as between subjects such an assurance would be enforceable because it was intended to be binding, intended to be acted upon, and was in fact acted upon; (ii) that the assurance was binding on the Crown because no term could be implied that the Crown was at liberty to revoke it; and (iii) that the assurance was therefore binding on the Minister of Pensions, the appellant having become entitled to assume that the War Office had consulted any other department concerned before it gave the assurance.”. [36] In Robertson’s case (supra), it was held that promissory estoppel applied to the Crown (Government) if the other party had acted upon it. Denning J held- “The assurance was given to the appellant in these explicit words: "Your disability has been accepted as attributable to military service." That was, on the face of it, an authoritative decision intended to be binding and intended to be acted on. … What then is the result in law? If this was a question between subjects, a person who gave such an assurance as that contained in the War Office letter would be held bound by it unless he could show that it was made under the influence of a mistake or induced by a misrepresentation or the like. No such defence is made here. There are many cases in the books which establish that an unequivocal acceptance of liability will be enforced if it is intended to be binding, intended to be acted on, and is in fact acted on. The Crown cannot escape by saying that estoppels do not bind the Crown, for that doctrine has long been exploded. Nor can the Crown escape by praying in aid the doctrine of executive necessity, that is, the doctrine that the Crown cannot bind itself so as to fetter its future executive action.”. [37] This Court also agreed with the contention of the Applicant that the letters dated 24.12.2010 and 09.07.2012 were written on behalf of the Director General of JPA and the Applicant has acted upon it. Therefore, these letters cannot now be disregarded or revoked by the Respondents. [38] In the case of Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v. Syarikat Bekerjasama-Sama Serbaguna Sungai Gelugor Dengan Tanggungan [1999] 3 MLJ 1; [1999] 3 CLJ 65; [1999] 3 AMR 3529, on the point estoppel and of legitimate expectation, the Court held- “On the Estoppel point, we are conscious of the fact that generally courts are strongly protective of public authorities’ freedom to discharge their powers unfettered. We are also aware of the general principle that an estoppel cannot be raised to prevent the exercise of a statutory discretion or to prevent or excuse the performance of a statutory duty (see Spencer Bower and Turner on Estoppel by Representation (3rd Ed) at p 151); ……. Then again, as de Smith has pointed out in a passage quoted above, administrative power may be unreasonably exercised or abused, where the impact of the official decision is oppressive or an unnecessarily onerous infringement of a person's rights or interests. Although free to alter its policy, the authority is by no means free to ignore the existence of a legitimate expectation. Now that legitimate expectation has been accepted in Law as an interest worthy of protection, its existence becomes a relevant consideration which must be taken into consideration in the exercise of a discretion. It is placed on the scale and must be properly weighed.” CONCLUSION [39] Based on the above deliberations, this Court allows the Applicant’s claim in prayers 1(a), 2, 3, 4, and 5. Dated: 29 JULY 2025 -SGD- (SUZANA BINTI MUHAMAD SAID) Judicial Commissioner of the High Court NCVC 1 Kuala Lumpur COUNSELS For the Applicant : J. Doshi Messrs Abdullah & Zainuddin For the Respondents : Nurhafizza binti Azizan and Ng Wee Li