Any post-equalization increase awarded to active public servants in the same or a similar position to the last position held by the dismissed or retired worker shall give rise to the same pension increase to which the active public servant is entitled10. 18. The decision contained in Resolution No. AD-0884/90-R was based on Board of Director Decisions No. 155/88 of December 22,1988 and 029/90 of February 8,199011. Those decisions authorized the Public Administration to include public servants in the aforementioned pension scheme and established regulatory norms to that end.12 19. After retiring on September 30, 1990, Mr. Muelle received his pension in accordance with Decree law 20530 until February 1991.13 On February 27, 1991, Mr. Muelle received a communication from the company informing him that application of Decree Law 20530 was being suspended.14 B. Regarding the first application for enforcement of rights (amparo) filed by Mr. Muelle 20. On April 18, 1991, Mr. Muelle filed an application for amparo seeking his reincorporation in the Decree Law 20530 pension scheme.15 On July 19, 1991, the Fifth Civil Court of Lima declared the application well-founded and ordered in favor of Mr. Muelle that the suspension of the Decree Law 20530 pension and benefits scheme be set aside.16 Regarding Mr. Muelle's inclusion in that scheme, the Court argued as follows: (...) that inclusion established a substantive legal relationship between employee and employer, that is to say, one that gave rise to material rights and obligations that both parties must comply with (...). Therefore the plaintiff cannot unilaterally suspend that legal relationship, much less do so through a mere report of the administrative manager (...) as he does not express the decision of the legal entity against which the action was brought. Amendment or termination of said rights has to be obtained via agreement between the parties or via a decision of a competent court.17 21. The court concluded that the notification issued by the company "violated the right to social security, equality, and the right to work guaranteed [in] the Political Constitution of the State."18 22. On May 29, 1992, the Second Civil Division of the Superior Court of Lima confirmed the lower court's decision.19 On February 2, 1993, the Supreme Court of Justice ratified the Superior Court's ruling.20 The Supreme Court has established the following: 10 Ley 23.495. Promulgated on November 20, 1982. 11 Decision of the Constitutional and Social Division of the Supreme Court, August 22, 1997. Attached to the petitioner's communication of November 10, 1998. 12 Decision of the Constitutional and Social Division of the Supreme Court, August 22, 1997. Attached to the petitioner's communication of November 10, 1998. 13 Judgment of the Supreme Court, of February 2, 1993. Attached to the petitioner's communication of November 10, 1998. 14 Judgment of the Supreme Court, of February 2, 1993. Attached to the petitioner's communication of November 10, 1998. 15 Complaint by Oscar Muelle, April 18, 1991. Attached to the State’s communication of February 26, 2010. 16 Judgment of the Fifth Civil Court, July 19, 1991. Attached to the State’s communication of February 26, 2010. 17 Judgment of the Fifth Civil Court, July 19, 1991. Attached to the State’s communication of February 26, 2010. 18 Judgment of the Fifth Civil Court, July 19, 1991. Attached to the State’s communication of February 26, 2010. 19 Judgment of the Supreme Court, of February 2, 1993. Attached to the petitioner's communication of November 10, 1998. 20 Judgment of the Supreme Court, of February 2, 1993. Attached to the petitioner's communication of November 10, 1998. 4