The Court Annulled the Decision on Refusing the Appointment of Pension
The Administrative court of RA decided to recognize invalid and to eliminate the decision N 222 on 11.06.2014 of Head of Sisian Regional Department of Administration of Social Security Service of The Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs of RA and the decision N AP/LL-1/707-15 on 05.02.2015 of Head of Social Security Service of the Ministry of Labor and Social affairs in result of the case of beneficiary of “The Foundation Against the Violation of Law” NGO Ararat Gevorgyan.
Moreover, the court has obliged the Social Security Service of The Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs of RA to assign the applicant a partial pension since 11.06.2014.
We can mention that Regional Department of Social Security Service was refused to assign the citizen partial pension, because he had worked as a master of manufacturing teaching, and the experience, by the opinion of department, was not pedagogical experience.
In the basis of legal and factual grounds of plaintiff and his representative, FAVL’s advocate Kristina Gevorkyan, the Court considered as proven, that the master of manufacturing teaching is a pedagogue, and work experience is pedagogic, it should therefore be the basis of a partial pension.
The court’s conclusion was based on the joint analysis of RA Law “On Preliminary professional (handicraft) and middle professional education” and the Decision of the Government of RA N 665-N on 05.05.2011., the letter of the Ministry of Education and Science of RA in which regard masters of manufacturing teaching have right to a partial pension, the letter of Head of State Language Inspection of Ministry of Education and Science of RA by which he informed, that “… According to Ed. Aghayan’s “Modern Armenian Dictionary” the word “pedagogue” has the following meanings: 1. specialist of teaching, 2. person, who is engaged in teaching, person involved in education. And pedagogical work mentions the occupation, connected with teaching”.
Thus, justice has been restored through the Court, and the person, factually done the work of pedagogue, was not deprived of his right to a pension in result of limited interpretation of Legal Acts by the administrative body.
Original source can be found here.