The Supreme Court did not allow to cut the pension of a former employee of the authorities
[ad_1]
Previously, it was reduced, having learned that they made a mistake when calculating the length of service.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation did not allow reducing the size of the pension on the sole basis that it was assigned due to an error made in calculating the length of service. This decision was made following the consideration of the case of a pensioner of the Ministry of Internal Affairs from Sakhalin, who resigned from service in 1991.
The retiree was assigned a pension that had been paid to the citizen for decades. And in 2019, the man suddenly found out that a mistake was made when calculating his length of service: one of the grace periods of his service, which was credited for 1.5 years, should have been credited for 1 year. Therefore, he retired six months earlier, and now its size will be cut.
The pensioner was forced to go to court. The Sakhalinets asked to recover from the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Sakhalin Region the withheld amount of the pension for the period from December 1, 2019 to November 30, 2020 (14.7 thousand rubles), the costs of paying for the services of a representative (15 thousand rubles), compensation for non-pecuniary damage (20 thousand rubles), as well as state duty (300 rubles). However, by decision of the lower courts, his claim was denied. Then he prepared a complaint to the Supreme Court.
After examining the case, the highest authority came to the conclusion that the complaint should be satisfied. The court decision states that, although the recalculation of a pension is quite legal, both up and down, when reducing the payment, one must take into account the period that has passed since the citizen was recognized as entitled to a pension. Sakhalin received it for 28 years, and during this time the authorized body did not attempt to recalculate the pension. If the recalculation had been made earlier, the citizen could return to the service and complete the missing six months. And now he’s too old for that. In addition, the purpose of the payment more than the due was made through no fault of his. Therefore, the decisions of the courts of three instances were canceled, the case was sent for a new trial to the district court.
[ad_2]
Source link
