Media
- Home
- Details
Sokoto---His Lordship, Hon. Justice K. D. Damulak of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Sokoto Judicial Division on Thursday 8th June 2018 in a Judgment delivered dismissed a suit against USMANU DANFODIO UNIVERSITY TEACHING HOSPITAL SOKOTO brought by SULEIMAN OBA ABDULRAHAMAN challenging underpayment of his pension for lacking merit.
The Claimant filed a complaint against the defendant in this court on 4/12/2017. The claimant prayed among others; An Order directing the defendant to pay the claimant’s pension on Grade level 12 step 11andAn Order directing the defendant to pay arrears of pensions due to the claimant on Grade level 12 step 11 being the level the claimant maintained until his appointment was terminated.
On the same 24/1/2018, the defendant also filed a preliminary objection to the competence of the suit on the ground that the suit was statute barred. In a considered ruling dated 21/2/2018, this court found that the suit has two separable causes of action and the cause of action for computation of years of service was statute barred and struck out remaining the cause of action for underpayment of monthly pension which went into hearing and this judgment is in respect of that head of claim only.
The claimant was a staff of the defendant, he retired in 1997 and was paid gratuity and is being paid pension by the defendant. The claimant retired as a principal nursing officer on grade level 12. He claims that the defendant is paying him pension of a grade 5 retiree instead of grade level 12.
He was promoted to grade level 12 step 1 on 1/4/1987 and stagnated at that level 12 until on 10/6/ 1997 when his employment was terminated at grade level 12 step11 and he was paid a gratuity of N210,000.00 after serving for almost 30 years. That his appointment, having been terminated while he was a principal nursing officer, the pension being paid to him falls short of the amount due to him.
That series of correspondence are being sent to the Defendant to correct and normalize the pension that ought to be paid to him, but the Defendant flagrantly refused to comply.
Counsel to the defendant submitted further that since the claimant has admitted that it is PTAD that pays his pension, having retired as a senior staff, claimant’s claim against the defendant for underpayment of pension was not supported by evidence and ought in the circumstance to be struck out. Furthermore that claimant did not state the amount of pension of a grade level 5 pensioner, and that of a grade level 12 pensioner, neither did claimant proof how much he is being paid as pension. Counsel submitted that all the claims of the claimant have not been proved, they ought to fail and he urged the court to so hold.
After reviewing the argument of the parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice K. D. Damulak expressed thus;
“…In the absence of any contrary evidence, there is no ground for the claimant to insist that he retired at grade level 12 step 11 and not EUSS 11/8.
I find and hold that the claimant retired at EUSS 11/8 which is equivalent to grade level 12 step 8.
Furthermore, a mere pleading and testimony that claimant is being paid a monthly pension of N56, 000 as against N400.000.00 without more would not have established the claim. The claimant must show further how he arrived at the amount of N400, 000.00 that ought to be paid to him as monthly pension. Exhibit SOA5 is proof that the claimant complained to PTAT but it does not and cannot translate into documentary proof of the claim before the court.
I find that the claimant did not proof this head of claim against the defendant.
The claimant by his pleading and evidence as well as his counsel final written address has shown that it is the said PTAD that ought to pay his pension as a senior staff in accordance with the Federal Civil Service Rules. The said Pension Transitional Arrangement Directorate (PTAD) is not a party to this suit and no order can be made against it.
In the circumstance of this case, neither can this court make an order for the defendant to pay to the claimant a senior officer’s pension which it has no duty to do, going by claimant’s pleading and evidence.
On the whole, the claim of the claimant fails in its entirety and same is hereby dismissed.
Full Judgment, Click here
