ATC120502: Report on Special petition of Mrs ASE van Rheede van Oudtshoorn (submitted by Mr Bosman, MP), praying for pension, dated 02 May 2012
Report of the Committee on Private Members Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions (the Committee) on the special petition of Mrs ASE van Rheede van Oudtshoorn (submitted by Mr Bosman, MP), praying for pension, dated 02 May 2012
Report of the Committee on Private Members Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions (the Committee) on the special petition of Mrs ASE van Rheede van Oudtshoorn (submitted by Mr Bosman , MP), praying for pension, dated 02 May 2012
The Committee, having considered the special petition of Mrs ASE van Rheede van Oudtshoorn (the special petitioner) and having taken parliamentary legal advice, briefed by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, Treasury and Government Employee Pension Fund recommends that the petitioners request not be granted.
The committee wishes to make the following observations:
A special petition to Parliament should be a last resort when no other legal remedy is authorised by law to address an injustice alleged by a petitioner.
On 12 August 2010, the special petitioner was paid the lump sum payment that was due for a period of service on nine years and nine months.
Ms Van Rheede applied to purchase additional service only after she had already left the Government Employee Pension Fund (GEPF), and GEPF had confirmed that no prior application had been received from her while she was still a paying member of the Fund.
GEPF Rule 14.1.1 prescribed that :
If a member had less than ten years service, that person would be paid a gratuity
pension benefit only, which was calculated in a different way to reach a larger lump
sum, but no monthly annuity would then be paid. However, under Rule 10.4 a
member could apply to the board of the GEPF to purchase additional service that
could then be recognised as pensionable service.
Rule 14.2.1 prescribed that if a member had at least ten years pensionable service,
that member would be paid both a gratuity and a monthly annuity. Such an
application had to be made prior to a person exiting the GEPF.
Ms Van Rheede applied to purchase additional service only after she had already
left the GEPF, and GEPF had confirmed that no prior application had been received
from her while she was still a paying member of the Fund
The Government Pension Administration Agency (GPAA) had engaged with Ms Van Rheede van Oudtshoorn and her application for medical subsidy was finalised in the week of 31 July 2011.
GPAA determined that she was entitled to a lump sum or a subsidy of 66.67%, which amounts to R848.00 which would be paid to the special petitioners medical scheme as soon as a valid claim was received from the medical scheme.
According to the GPAA, The special petitioner would have to pay the difference of R424.00 per month.
The special petitioner was paid a lump sum gratuity of R194 997 (R181 158.96 after tax and other deductions) on her exit from the GEPF.
If she had purchased the extra three months of service prior to her exit from the
GEPF, she would have received a gratuity of R52 958.14 and a monthly annuity of
R1 224.04. If she retired with more than ten years service she would have received,
up to 31 July 2011, a total amount of R63 974 (gratuity of R52 958.14 and arrear
annuities amounting to R11 016.36).
If the special petitioner was allowed to purchase the three months of service she
would therefore have to repay R131 022.52 to the GEPF, and it was not known
whether she was currently able to do so.
If the special petitioner was to purchase additional service, she would have to repay
the gratuity that she had received in August 2010, or a portion of it, but then
additional amount would be paid by her and her former employer to the GEPF.
The committee wishes to make the following recommendation:
If the Committee were to allow the special petition and the purchase of that service, the employer and GEPF should not be asked to cover that amount, since she would then have received a substantial amount to which she was not entitled by comparison with other pensioners who had contributed and retired with ten years service.
In light of the above, the committee is of the view that, had GEPF adequately communicated the implications of the stipulated provisions with the special petitioner, it would not have necessitated consideration of this special petition by Parliament.
The Committee concluded that, the special petitioners request should not proceed. Therefore communication will be made to the sponsoring member to relate the decision of the Committee to the special petitioner.
Report to be considered.
No related documents