Report of the Committee on Private Members’ Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions on the special petition of Mr Amichand Munasur (submitted by Mr LT Landers, MP), praying for pension, dated 22 June 2011:

The Committee on Private Members’ Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions, having considered the special petition of Mr Amichand Munasur and having taken parliamentary legal advice, recommends that the petitioner’s request not be granted.

The committee wishes to make the following observations with regard to its recommendation:

1. A special petition to Parliament should be a last resort when no other legal remedy is authorised by law to address an injustice alleged by a petitioner.

2. Mr Munasur challenges the scope of the Public Service Coordinating Bargaining Council (PSCSC) Resolution 7 of 1998 and Resolution 12 of 2002, which deal with the registration of applications from potential beneficiaries for the recognition of non-pensionable services as pensionable years for public servants in service on 2 September 1998 and affected by past discriminatory pension practices.

3. Mr Munasur’s late wife, Mrs Sherine Devi Munasur, was a public servant. She was employed on a part-time basis with the Department of Education for the periods of 17 August 1977 to 20 February 1985 and 21 February 1985 to 18 August 1989. She passed away from leukaemia on 18 August 1989, while still in service. Mrs Munasur was a member of the Temporary Employee Pension Fund. Her pension was calculated from 21 February 1985 to 18 August 1989. The initial contractual period was regarded as a non-pensionable period. It is alleged that a recommendation regarding her medical status from the Department of National Health and Population Development prevented her status, following an initial probation period, from being upgraded to that of permanent, which would have resulted in her admittance to the Permanent Employee Pension Fund.

4. Mr Munasur argues that the break in service prevented his late wife from being recognised for continuous government service of seven years, which according to him amounts to an unfair labour practice.

5. The petitioner also holds “that certain Public Servants are still being discriminated against on the basis of the discriminatory practices of the former National Party regime, because the pensions re-structuring by the … [PSCBC] does not recognize public servants [such as his late wife] who were not in service on 2 September 1998”.

6. Although the redress mechanism envisaged by the mentioned resolutions does not serve Mr Munasur’s late wife favourably in light of the 2 September 1998 cut-off date, the legality of the mentioned resolutions can still be challenged in a court of law on the basis of the arguments presented by Mr Munasur. The petitioner has not yet challenged the legality of the resolutions in a court of law. As such, the petitioner has not exhausted all legal remedies.

In light of the above, the committee is of the view that the special petition of Mr Munasur is not yet ripe for consideration by Parliament, as the petitioner still has legal relief authorised by law to his disposal.

Report to be considered.