Industrial Court Clarifies Retirement Date of National Assembly Service Commission Director
The President of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), Hon. Justice Benedict Kanyip, PhD, OFR, has ruled that the compulsory retirement date of Dr Christopher, a Director in the National Assembly Service Commission (NASC), is 1 January 2026 and not 1 January 2025 as earlier communicated by the Commission.
In his judgment, Justice Kanyip held that the claimant’s notional promotion date of 1 January 2017 could not be used in computing the eight‑year tenure policy under the Revised Public Service Rules, 2021, as applicable to the NASC. The Court therefore set aside the purported retirement letter dated 8 October 2024, declaring it contrary to the governing rules.
The Court granted an order restraining the NASC and the Clerk to the National Assembly from compulsorily retiring Dr Christopher at any date earlier than 1 January 2026.
Dr Christopher argued that although his promotion letter as Director was dated 3 July 2018 and backdated to 1 January 2017, his financial entitlements as Director only commenced on 1 January 2018. He contended that the computation of his retirement date must align with the date his financial benefits took effect, thereby making 1 January 2026 the correct retirement date.
He further submitted that the eight‑year compulsory retirement rule applies only to the date of actual promotion, not notional promotion.
The NASC maintained that promotion encompasses more than financial benefits, extending to seniority, privileges, and succession rights. It argued that Dr Christopher had enjoyed the benefits of notional promotion and that it would be inequitable to disregard them.
The Clerk to the National Assembly insisted that the eight‑year tenure should be calculated from the cumulative period the claimant was deemed to hold the office of Director, including the notional promotion period. The Clerk added that the promotion was intended to enhance the claimant’s career prospects, not to hasten his retirement.
Justice Kanyip rejected the defendants’ assertions, noting that no evidence was adduced to prove that the claimant derived tangible benefits from the notional promotion. He emphasized that: the eight‑year tenure policy applies strictly to Directors who have actually served eight years in post, and notional promotions without financial benefits cannot be deemed substantive promotions. Where an employer seeks to rely on notional promotion for tenure computation, it must have borne the full financial obligations of the promotion during the notional period.
