Court Clarifies on Retirement Age for Teachers & Civil Servants
In an effort to stop retirement age fraud, employers are now required to adopt the general retirement age in the public sector.
The Employment and Labour Relations Court has ruled that when workers refuse to divulge their retirement age, employers must adopt the standard retirement age in the public service.
The court did emphasise that such situations need to be addressed carefully and swiftly brought to the employee’s attention.
The statement by Justice Monica Mbaru that “there is no such thing as permanent employment” or that “every type of employment is terminable due to different aspects, including that of attaining a retirement age,” is accurate.
A date assignment cannot be made arbitrarily for an employee, in accordance with Justice Mbaru, unless the employer has required the employee to register and provide the date of birth or month.
Also Read:Â Gov’t Set to Send Teachers and Civil Servants Aged 55 On Retirement
She claimed that a government retirement circular, which was cited in another case, allowed an employee to identify their date of birth in order to give the employer some level of assurance regarding the retirement date. This was done to address the growing demand for honesty and clarity in the workplace.
Justice Mbaru stated in her ruling on an appeal brought by former security guard Kenneth Ouma that the retirement age was changed from 55 to 60 years old and has been used as a best practise over the years.
Mr. Ouma had filed a case against SGA Mombasa Ltd. at the magistrate’s court, claiming that the business had fired him unfairly and without cause. He made the choice to appeal when the case was dismissed.
Justice Mbaru asserts that since Mr. Ouma’s national identification card only provided the year of his birth as 1959, his 60th birthday should have occurred on July 1 of 2019 and not earlier.
She asserted that if his retirement situation had been handled properly, he should have been permitted to continue working until July 1, 2019.
“It was unjust for the appellant to receive an early retirement without going through the proper channels. However, despite being prematurely served, he received a notice and payment for his time worked, according to Justice Mbaru.
The judge further stated that it was an unfair employment practise against Mr. Ouma because the gap between February and July 1, 2019, prevented him from having a reasonable opportunity to make a living.
For the harm done to Mr. Ouma, Justice Mbaru gave him Sh101,939 in restitution for a three-month gross salary.
Court Clarifies on Retirement Age for Teachers & Civil Servants
