Workers who retired early due to a dismissal must take into account the latest ruling of the Supreme Court where it clarifies that it gives the right to collect the maternity supplement, even if Social Security classified the pension as voluntary. Thus, the High Court has established doctrine, explaining that an error in the administrative label does not make retirement “voluntary” to deny this supplement if it is demonstrated before the judge that the real cause of the termination was forced and compensated.
Social Security denies this supplement for early retirements, since this is stated in article 60.4 of the General Social Security Law. Now, this new ruling clarifies that “involuntariness” is a question of fact that the courts can review. To understand that if the worker was fired for objective reasons, reality prevails over the administrative error and therefore has the right to collect the maternity supplement (now called the gender gap supplement).
You may be interested
Pilar Vaquerizo, forced to retire: “I have worked for 44 years and 314 days and I have been penalized 24%, enough is enough”
Interior is working on the early retirement of the National Police and Civil Guard, but they point out that “the risk profession does not exist”
Right to supplement in voluntary early retirements with dismissal
The regulations, which affect pensions earned before 2021 (with the new rule change) denied the supplement to those who accessed early retirement of their own will. In this case, the conflict arose when Social Security erroneously classified as “voluntary” a retirement that, in reality, derived from an objective dismissal or restructuring. Social Security argued that this classification, being firm and unchallenged at the time, prevented the supplement from being collected years later.
The Supreme Court rejects this administrative rigidity and recalls that article 207 of the law defines involuntary retirement as that derived from causes beyond the control of the worker, such as objective dismissal for economic or organizational reasons. For this reason, the High Court says that an erroneous administrative decision cannot prevent the judge from applying the law correctly and recognizing that the termination of the contract was not free, but forced, thus fulfilling the requirement for the complement.
A retiree recovered 5% of his pension
This ruling, STS 976/2025 (available at this link from the Judiciary) of October 21, resolves the case of Gregorio, a father of two children whose retirement had economic effects since January 1, 2019. The worker agreed to retire after an objective, compensated dismissal, but the INSS classified his pension as “voluntary early” in the initial resolution.
When requesting the 5% supplement in 2022, the managing entity denied it, alleging that his retirement was voluntary. The Supreme Court agrees with the retiree, explaining that it is understandable that he did not challenge the “volunteer” label in 2019, since then the supplement was only for women and that error did not harm him. Upon proving that he actually suffered a compensated forced termination, the court declares that the INSS classification was improper and recognizes his right to the supplement with retroactive effect from his retirement.
It is important to clarify that this ruling does not change the rule for those who truly retired of their own free will. That is, it affects those where Social Security labeled them as voluntary when in reality, it was for reasons beyond their control. In this sense, a pensioner can demonstrate that his retirement was due to an objective or collective dismissal (those regulated by article 207 of the Social Security Law), he can claim in court.