The Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia has ruled in favor of Social Security in the case of a pensioner who claimed 12,185.24 euros in arrears of the 20% complement of his total permanent disability pension. The Social Chamber explains that this supplement is governed by the same prescription rules as a benefit, so it can only be collected three months in arrears from when it is requested.
The affected person, a former drill driver who also served in the National Police Corps, had a total permanent disability recognized since 2013 with a pension equivalent to 75% of his regulatory base. This benefit was weighed by the so-called 20% increase in the total permanent disability pension, a supplement (known as the “qualified”) reserved for those over 55 years of age and who have difficulty finding a job.
Justice returns total permanent disability due to arthritis and migraines to a cashier after Social Security withdrew it due to “improvement”
Social Security refuses to recognize permanent disability due to a work accident for employees who suffer injuries resulting from reckless negligence.
The payment of this supplement was suspended in 2020. Social Security detected that the pensioner was simultaneously receiving a Passive Classes retirement pension as a police officer, calculated with the same services, and considered that the situation was incompatible. That resolution, which also claimed 31,317.15 euros as undue collection, was confirmed by the courts and became final.
In January 2023, once the cause that motivated the suspension ceased, the worker requested the supplement again and Social Security recognized it, although only with economic effects going back three months (what is known as retroactivity). Social Security explained to him that, since he had stopped working, the suspension was lifted and he would once again collect the 20 percent increase in the regulatory base of his pension.
The conflict was not the right, but since when to collect it
The core of the dispute was not whether or not he was entitled to the supplement, something that no one disputed, but rather the date from which the arrears had to be paid. The pensioner maintained that the calculation should start at the beginning of 2020, when he ceased as a police officer and, according to him, the incompatibility disappeared, which significantly raised the claimed figure. Social Security defended that only the three months prior to the request were applicable.
The key is in article 53 of the General Social Security Law, which regulates the prescription. The rule establishes that, if the amount of a benefit already recognized is affected by a request for review, the economic effects will be retroactive for a maximum of three months from the date of presentation of said request. The court remembers that this writing was registered on January 23, 2023.
A plugin that does not work automatically
To resolve, the Chamber relies on consolidated doctrine of the Supreme Court. The 20% increase is not an independent benefit, but neither is it an automatic right. Its recognition depends on circumstances such as age or the difficulty of finding another job, which gives it, according to the magistrates, autonomy typical of a benefit. The cited jurisprudence emphasizes that “it is not provided in the Law that the recognition of this percentage increase in the benefit must be automatic.”
Due to this benefit nature, the supplement is subject to the same prescription regime. The ruling summarizes it by pointing out that it is not a calculation error, but rather a discrepancy regarding the period to which the effects of the payment can be retroactively taken. In the words of the resolution, “we are not facing a calculation error, but rather a discrepancy regarding the period to which the effects of the payment of the claimed supplement must be carried back.”
With these arguments, and with the consolidated text of the General Social Security Law in hand, the Chamber dismisses the appeal and confirms the lower court ruling, so that the pensioner will only receive the arrears for the three months prior to his request. The resolution is not final and there is still an appeal for the unification of doctrine before the Supreme Court.