PARTHIBAN A/L KANNIAPPAN v Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial (PERKESO)

Case Significance

An invalidity-pension appeal dismissed as both time-barred under the mandatory section 91 deadline and without merit because the application was made after age 60.

This High Court decision concerns an appeal against a decision of the Social Security Appeal Board — the Jemaah Rayuan Keselamatan Sosial (JRKS) — refusing the appellant's application for an invalidity pension under the social security scheme administered by Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial (the Social Security Organisation, PERKESO). The appellant had applied for an invalidity pension on the strength of a medical report diagnosing him with chronic obstructive airway disease in acute exacerbation secondary to community acquired pneumonia.

PERKESO's Director-General had rejected the application on the ground that the appellant had exceeded 60 years of age at the date the relevant notice was sent and was still engaged in gainful employment after reaching that age. The appellant's further appeal to the Board was also dismissed. The Board relied on Regulation 46 of the Employees' Social Security (General) Regulations 1971 in finding him ineligible.

Two grounds sustained the dismissal of the appeal to the High Court. First, the appeal was incompetent because it was filed outside the period prescribed by section 91 of the Employees' Social Security Act 1969 (Act 4). Second, the appeal was without merit because the application for an invalidity pension had been made only after the appellant had already attained the age of 60. On the timing question, the Court invoked the Supreme Court's guidance that where a court exercises a discretion to abridge time under paragraph 8 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, that discretion mesti dilaksanakan secara adil, bukan secara sembarangan atau tidak menentu (must be exercised fairly, not arbitrarily or capriciously) and only where the interests of justice require. The Court held that the time limit in section 91 is mandatory, with no express provision in the Act permitting abridgment or extension, and dismissed the appeal. The judgment illustrates the strictness of the statutory appeal deadline in social-security invalidity-pension disputes.