Pension payments for years of service are appointed and carried out from the date of dismissal from service, but not earlier than the day on which the salary was paid, and not more than three years before the day of applying for the appointment of pension payments for years of service.

Sh. I filed a lawsuit against the State Institution "Committee for National Security of the Republic of Kazakhstan" (hereinafter – KNB/Committee) and the RSE "State Pension Payment Center of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan" (hereinafter – GTSVP) on the compulsion to appoint, recalculate for the period from June 1, 2011 to February 28, 2015 and the payment of a superannuation pension, to appoint from June 1, 2011 and the implementation of the state basic pension payments for compensation of moral damage. By the decision of the Yesilsky District Court of July 29, 2020, the claim was dismissed. By the decision of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Nur-Sultan City Court dated October 28, 2020, the decision of the court of first instance was changed, regarding the refusal to satisfy the claim for forcing the National Security Committee to appoint, recalculate for the period from June 1, 2011 to February 28, 2015 and the payment of Sh. Superannuation pensions - cancelled with a new decision on the satisfaction of the claim in this part. The rest of the district court's decision remained unchanged. The Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court has changed the judicial acts of local courts with a new decision regarding the compulsion to appoint and recalculate the state basic pension payment. The claim of S. I am satisfied that the State Institution "Committee for National Security of the Republic of Kazakhstan" was forced to appoint and recalculate the state basic pension payment. The Russian State Institution "National Security Committee of the Republic of Kazakhstan" is charged with the duty to appoint Sh. the state basic pension payment with its recalculation from June 1, 2011.

Pension payments for years of service are appointed and carried out from the date of dismissal from service, but not earlier than the day on which the salary was paid, and not more than three years before the day of applying for the appointment of pension payments for years of service.

The court of cassation, in accordance with article 449 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, verifies the legality of judicial acts issued by courts of lower instances, based on the materials available in the case, within the arguments given in the petition of Sh. The decision of the Yesilsky District Court of July 29, 2020 and the decision of the judicial board of the Nur-Sultan City Court of October 28, 2020 are being challenged in terms of rejecting the claim of Sh. on forcing the National Security Committee to appoint a state basic pension payment starting from June 1, 2011. It was recognized as established by the court in the case and is not disputed by the parties that Sh., born on November 25, 1974, from August 1990 to April 1994, worked as a milling cutter at Kainar in Taldykorgan, from May 1994 to December 1995 he served in military service, from July 1996 to May 2000 he studied at the Military From June 2000 to June 1, 2011, he served in the Committee's Border Troops. By Order No. 122 of the commander of Military unit 2032 of the National Security Committee Border Guard Service dated June 1, 2011, the senior officer of military unit 2032, Major Sh. He was discharged from military service according to the report submitted by him for health reasons. As of June 1, 2011, the total length of service is set at 20 years, 5 months, 11 days, of which the length of service in calendar terms is 16 years, 5 months, 28 days, in preferential terms – 3 years, 11 months, 13 days. In accordance with subparagraph 3) Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Law of June 20, 1997 No. 136 "On Pension Provision in the Republic of Kazakhstan" (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 136), as amended on June 1, 2011, military officers who were discharged upon reaching the age limit for military service were entitled to retirement benefits., for staff reduction or health reasons, who have a total work experience of twenty-five years or more, of which at least twelve years and six months is continuous military service. A similar provision is contained in the current version of subparagraph 3) of paragraph 1 of Article 64 of the Law dated June 21, 2013 No. 105-V SAM "On Pension provision in the Republic of Kazakhstan" (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 105-V SAM). Due to the fact that the HR department, as of the day of dismissal, has a total work experience of Sh. has been defined for less than 25 years – 20 years, 5 months, 11 days, the issue of assigning him pension payments for years of service in accordance with subparagraph 3) Paragraph 1 of article 60 of Law No. 136 was not allowed. February 23, 2018 Sh. he applied for a retirement pension, attaching evidence of his 25 years of total work experience, including a work record, an archival certificate of work before military service for 3 years, 8 months, and 6 days at the Taldykorgan Lead Battery Plant (Kainar software), as previously reported during the They have repeatedly informed the military unit, the personnel service of the National Security Committee.

In accordance with the updated military service calculation and the conclusion of June 14, 2018, Sh. Taking into account the newly established total length of service of 25 years, 3 months and 4 days, a long–service pension in the amount of 83,479 tenge, amounting to 50% of the official salary for the last military position, has been scheduled for monthly payment from February 23, 2018. On August 4, 2018, Sh. He applied again, asking for a recalculation and payment of his pension for the period up to February 23, 2018. According to paragraph 1 of Article 68 of the Law No. 105-V of the SAM in the current version, pension payments for years of service are appointed and carried out from the date of dismissal from service (exclusion from the lists of personnel), but not earlier than the day on which the salary was paid, and not more than three years before the day of applying for the appointment of pension payments for years of service.

Pension payments for years of service are appointed and carried out from the date of dismissal from service, but not earlier than the day on which the salary was paid, and not more than three years before the day of applying for the appointment of pension payments for years of service.

Based on the above provision of Law No. 105-V of the SAM, Sh. according to the application dated August 4, 2018, the Committee recalculated pension payments for years of service and, taking into account the indexation for the three-year period preceding the day of pension appointment (from February 23, 2015 to February 23, 2018), 2,028,522 tenge was determined to be paid. Considering that due to the fault of the National Security Committee, his right to receive long-service pension payments and state basic pension payments from the date of discharge from military service (exclusion from the list of personnel) was violated, Sh. I filed a lawsuit in the present case, justifying my claims with reference to paragraph 2 of Article 22 of Law No. 105-V of the Air Defense System, according to which the amounts of state basic pension payments and superannuation payments that were not received on time due to the fault of the body that appoints the state basic pension payment or provides superannuation are paid for the past time, with no time limit. Requirements for the appointment and payment of the state basic pension payment plaintiff Sh. He also justifies by reference to the provisions of subparagraph 3) of paragraph 2 of Article 5 of Law No. 136, in force at the time of the emergence of his right to pension payments for years of service, according to which the state basic pension payment was made to military personnel who were entitled to receive pension payments for years of service. A similar provision was contained until January 1, 2016 in subparagraph 3) of paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law No. 105-V SAM in the wording in force before the entry into force of the amendments introduced by the Law of August 2, 2015 No. 342-V. The court of first instance motivated the refusal to satisfy the claim by pointing out that Sh. he did not inform the National Security Committee of his work experience in the period from September 10, 1990 to May 13, 1994 before military service and did not provide the employer with documents confirming this work experience in a timely manner, and upon discharge from military service, being familiar with the calculation of length of service, in which he was not entitled to a pension, I didn't make any claims.

The Court of Appeal, having correctly identified the circumstance to be clarified and essential for the proper resolution of the dispute, indicated that the subject of proof in the case is the absence or presence of the Committee's guilt in not accepting Sh.'s work experience. The Kainar software was taken into account when determining his length of service upon dismissal in 2011 and, accordingly, determining the validity of the plaintiff's claims for the application of paragraph 2 of Article 22 of Law No. 105-V of the SAM, that is, recognizing his right to pension payments for the past time without limitation for a three-year period. According to paragraph 3 of Article 15 of Law No. 136, as amended on the day of Sh.'s dismissal. starting from military service (a similar rule is in paragraph 3 of Article 17 of Law No. 105-V), the body that appoints pension payments is obliged to provide explanations on the issues of assigning pensions and assist citizens in completing the relevant documents. In accordance with Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code), failure to exercise the rights belonging to citizens does not entail the termination of these rights, except in cases provided for by legislative acts. Citizens and legal entities must act in good faith, reasonably and fairly in exercising their rights, observing the requirements contained in the legislation and the moral principles of society. Good faith, reasonableness and fairness of the actions of participants in civil law relations are assumed. Actions of citizens and legal entities aimed at harming another person, abuse of rights in other forms are not allowed. No one has the right to take advantage of their unscrupulous behavior. As the court of appeal correctly noted, it was established in the case that Sh. repeatedly indicated information about his work in 1990-1994 at the Kainar software when applying to study at a military institute and military service, when reporting autobiographical information and filling out personal personnel records during his service in the National Security Committee. Subsequently, it was taking into account the length of service of the plaintiff in PO "K" that the Committee voluntarily recognized the right of S. He retired on seniority, appointed her in February 2018 and recalculated in August 2018 for the previous three years. Therefore, by changing the decision of the district court and justifiably satisfying the claim for forcing the Committee to recalculate and pay the plaintiff's retirement pension for the period from June 2011 to February 2015, the Nur-Sultan city court, in accordance with part 5 of Article 6 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter – CPC), adhering to the criteria of fairness and reasonableness, legitimately proceeded from the fact that the relevant services of the National Security Committee, being aware that the dismissed employee had work experience before serving in the army, did not act in good faith and fairly, did not comply with the above requirements of Article 8 of the Civil Code, paragraph 3 of Article 15 of Law No. 136, did not explain in a timely manner the possibility of If he received a pension, they did not provide him with documents confirming his work experience at Kainar Software. They did not provide assistance in processing the application and other necessary documents.

At the same time, the court of appeal allowed the incorrect application of the norms of the substantive law in resolving the issue of the right of S. to receive a state basic pension payment. Rejecting the plaintiff in the named part of the claim, the courts of first and appellate instances, with reference to subparagraph 24) of Article 1, subparagraph 2) of paragraph 2 of Article 4 of Law No. 105-V, indicated that the state basic pension payment is a monthly monetary payment provided upon reaching the retirement age, which Sh. I haven't reached it. Meanwhile, at the time of his dismissal, Sh. since his military service and the right to pension payments for years of service, recognized by the judicial board of the Nur-Sultan City Court, from June 1, 2011, Law No. 136 was in force and was subject to application, according to which (subparagraph 3) of paragraph 2 of Article 5) state basic pension payments were also made to persons (including military personnel), who were entitled to pension payments for years of service. Therefore, the recognition is for S. from the date of discharge from military service, the right to pension payments for years of service shall entail in accordance with subparagraph 3) Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of Law No. 136 recognizes his right to receive a State basic pension payment from June 1, 2011. The incorrect application of the rule of law by the Yesilsky District Court and the judicial board of the Nur-Sultan City Court led to an incorrect resolution of the case, which, in accordance with subparagraph 4) Part 1, subitems 1), 2) of part 2 of Article 427 of the CPC is the basis for changing the judicial acts that have taken place. In accordance with Article 109 of the CPC, the court awards all court costs incurred in the case to the party in whose favor the decision was made.

When applying to the Supreme Court with the petition of Sh. court costs were incurred by paying a state fee in the amount of 1,389 tenge, to be reimbursed at the expense of the opposing party, whose actions were challenged in the case and which is charged with the duty to eliminate the violation of the rights and legitimate interests of the plaintiff. According to paragraph 4 of Article 108 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Taxes and Other Mandatory Payments to the Budget" (the Tax Code), the refund of the amount of the state duty to the taxpayer in whose favor the court decision on collecting the state duty from the state institution that is a party to the case was made by the tax authority on the basis of a tax application submitted by the taxpayer and entered into force the force of the court's decision. 

Attention!   

       Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.  

 For more information,  please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085. 

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office  Court Cases