50% cash benefit upon dismissal from service: why the court refused the mobilized person
After discharge, servicemen often face the fact that the calculation of cash benefits depends on complex legal nuances, and the difference between types of service can completely change the amount of payment. Because of this, some disputes go to court, where the military tries to prove the right to additional funds, and the courts check the grounds for conscription, length of service, payments received and the norm of the law that applies to a particular person. In one such case, a mobilized serviceman demanded 50% of the monthly cash benefit for each year of service, but the court sided with the military unit due to the special payment procedure for mobilized ones.
Court refuses to pay 50% of the cash benefit
The serviceman appealed to the court with a demand to oblige the military unit to accrue to him a one-time cash benefit upon discharge in the amount of 50% of the monthly cash benefit for each year of service. In his opinion, the unit’s refusal violated his right to a proper settlement after the end of service. This is stated in the materials of case No. 560/5666/25.
The military unit objected to the claim, explaining that the man was serving under conscription during mobilization. Because of this, according to the defendant, he was subject to different rules for payment of benefits upon dismissal, which differ from the procedure for calculating 50% for each year of service.
During the consideration of the case, the court checked the grounds for the plaintiff’s enlistment in the service, the procedure for his dismissal, and the payments that he had already received at the time of his exclusion from the personnel lists. The established circumstances confirmed that the man was a mobilized military serviceman and had not previously served in another type of service that would have given him the right to the assistance he claimed.
For military personnel called up during mobilization, a special provision of Part 2 of Article 15 of the Law of Ukraine “On Social and Legal Protection of Military Personnel and Members of Their Families” applies. It provides for a one-time cash benefit upon dismissal for each month of service, the amount of which is 4% of the monthly cash benefit, but the total amount must be no less than 25% of the monthly cash benefit.
In the case, the court also took into account that on the day of dismissal, the plaintiff had already been paid the benefit provided for by Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 460. The legislation does not allow receiving several one-time payments simultaneously on different grounds if they relate to the same dismissal from service.
Given these circumstances, the court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to 50% of the monthly cash benefit for each year of service. His status as a mobilized serviceman was determined by a different calculation mechanism, so the claims to the military unit were left unsatisfied.
If a serviceman believes that the unit incorrectly determined the amount of a lump-sum benefit, he can first file a complaint with the higher command. This path makes it possible to find out the reason for the delay or check the calculation without immediately going to court.
The cash benefit must be paid within a month after discharge, although in practice the calculation is sometimes delayed due to lack of funding or internal organizational reasons. In such a situation, the serviceman should obtain a written explanation from the unit, as it may be needed for further appeal.
Other judicial positions on payments to military personnel
The courts have also considered disputes about additional payments to military personnel who were injured during combat operations. The Supreme Court confirmed the right to increased cash benefits during inpatient treatment and leave after a serious injury, if the injury is related to the performance of combat missions.
The amount of such payments depends on the nature of the injury, its severity and the conclusion of the military medical commission. The documents of the VLK are of crucial importance, as they confirm the medical circumstances, without which the military unit cannot correctly determine the amount of accruals.
Separately, the courts draw attention to the fact that the payment of 30,000 hryvnias is not an automatic additional payment solely due to the status of a military serviceman. Its accrual is associated with the actual performance of the relevant official or combat tasks, therefore, a trip to state bodies in itself does not create the right to such remuneration.
