HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION OF SRI LANKA - Annual report 2020 contravening the established procedure the order was made to take effect from the date of the order rather than from the date of the wrongdoing, which resulted in the period of punishment being calculated from 20102013 instead of from 2008-2011. The Petitioner contended that such deviation from established procedure led to the petitioner being deprived of multiple opportunities for promotions and thereby salary increments. The respondents admitted that the enforcement of the disciplinary order should have taken effect from the date of wrongdoing and informed the Commission that the respondent had already obtained the advice of the Public Service Commission on the correct procedure. The Commission found that said conduct of the respondent was in violation of procedure stipulated under Section 23.9, Chapter XLVIII of Volume II of the Establishments Code; Section 186(2) of Chapter VIII of the Procedural Rules No. 1589/30 dated 20.02.2009 of the Public Service Commission; and provisions of Circular No. 03/2015 of the Public Service Commission. The Commission recommended the petitioner to be promoted to the post of “Assistant Labour Commissioner” and to backdate the promotions leading up to the said position. It further recommended salary and other allowances to be awarded to the petitioner accordingly. The Commission did not find a violation of Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution, as pleaded by the petitioner.  Computation of Pension of permanently disabled public servants (HRC/3397/17) Responding to a complaint made by 20 petitioners who were permanently disabled consequent to the terrorist attack on the Central Bank of Sri Lanka on 31. 01. 1996 the Commission found a violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution pertaining to the enforcement of the pension scheme stipulated by Circular No. S/N/COM/C/1 dated 13.10.1996. The petitioners before the Commission were among the 28 people who were permanently disabled consequent to the said terrorist attack. Taking the special circumstances into consideration, the respondent Central Bank introduced a special pension structure under which the petitioners had the choice to opt for one out of two schemes proposed. The petitioners have chosen scheme ‘D’ (“ඈ”). Under the said scheme, the petitioners were hypothetically deemed to have reached the age of retirement of 55 years and the pension had been calculated by taking into consideration the basic salary increments that the petitioners were entitled to receive until they reached the age of 55. The 51