1967 Nov. Π LEONTIOS •APALEONTIOU V, REPUBLIC .'COUNCIL O F MINISTERS ND ANOTHER) [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, J.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OFTHE CONSTITUTION LEONTIOS PAPALEONTIOU, Applicant, and THE REPUBL

Article 54

of the Constitution, and not within the competence of the Public Service, Commission under Article 125.1 of the Constitution ; (

1. b)did not amount to unequal treatment or discrimination against the Applicant contrary to Article 28 ; and (
2. c)was duly reasoned in the circumstancesSee, also, herebelow. Public Service Commission—Competence—Article 125.1 of the Constitution—The sub judicedecision wasoutsidesuchcompetence, but within the residual competence

Article 54of the Constitution—See, also, hereabove.

Council of Ministers—Competence—Residual competence

Article 54of the Constitution—See above under Public Officers ; Public Service Commission.

Constitutional Law — Public Service Commission — Competence — Article 125.1—Council of Ministers—Competence—Residual competence—Article 54 of the Constitution—Discrimination and unequal treatment—Article 28 of the Constitution—Treating differently, essentially different cases does not amount to a 624 discrimination ο * unequal treatment—See, also, above under Public Officers ;Public Service Commission ; Councilof Ministers. Administrative Law—Administrative decisions—Reasons—May be found either in the decision itself or in the submissions or official records related thereto—See, also, under Public Officers, above. Reasons—Administrative decisions—Must be duly reasoned—See above under Public Officers ; Administrative Law. Administrative decisions—Reasons—See above. Discrimination or unequal treatment—See above under Constitutional Law. Unequal treatment—Discrimination—See above under Constitutional Law. Public Service—See above under Public Officers. Pension and gratuity—In case of termination of a public officer's employment in the public interest—Sections 6(

1. e)(/) and 7of the Pension Law, Cap. 311—Discretion—See above under Public Officers ; Public Service Commission ; Council of Ministers. Discretion—Proper use of—See above under Public Officers. Competence—Residual competence of the Council of Ministers— Article 54 of the Constitution—Public Service Commission— Competence—Article 125.1 of the Constitution—See above under Public Officers ; Public Service Commission ; Council of Ministers. Termination of Employment—Of Public Officers inthepublic interest— Pensionandgratuity—Discretion—Competence—See aboveunder Public Officers. In this case the Applicant complains against a decision of the Council of Ministers, dated the 20th January, 1966, not to treat his resignation from the public service as termination of his services in the public interest so as to enable him to receive a pension andgratuity under sections6(
2. f)and 7 of the Pensions Law, Cap. 311. The Applicant, a Court Stenographer 2nd Grade, securedin November, 1965, employment in the service of the United Nations abroad. Eventually, on the 1st January, 1966, he wrote to the Council of Ministers, through the Personnel Department in the Ministry of Finance stating that, in view of.certain facts referred to therein, he had no other alternative 625 Nov. 11 LEONTIOS PAPALEONTIOU V. REPUBLIC (COUNCILOF MINISTERS AND ANOTHER) 1967 Nov.11 LEONTIOS PAPALEONTIOU V. REPUBLIC (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS AND ANOTHER) than to resign on the 1st February, 1966, as he had already made arrangements to take up duty as from that date with the United Nations, in India and Pakistan. By the same letter he requested to be granted on resignation a pension and gratuity ; hebased hisrequest mainly on grounds of publicinterest —in view of the fact that he was resigning in order to serve the United Nations—and he asked for the same treatment as was accorded to another Court Stenographer, Mr. S., who had earlier left thepublicservice in ordertotake upemployment abroad withthe United Nations and had been granted apension and gratuity. As already stated, the Council of Ministers by its decision of the 20th January, 1966, refused the request of the Applicant, who on the 31st January, 1966, submitted formally his resignation to the PublicService Commission which resignation was accepted. It has been argued on behalf of the Applicant that it was not the Council of Ministers, but the Public Service Commission under Article 125.1oftheConstitution, whichwasthecompetent organ to deal with Applicant's said request contained in his aforementioned letter of the 1st January, 1966. The next point raised on behalf of the Applicant was that he has been the victim of unequal and discriminatory treatment contrary to Article 28 of the Constitution, in view of the fact that two other Court Stenographers, Messrs. Sarkissian and Karaviotis, having resigned and taken up employment with the United Nations abroad, were treated as having retired in the public interest, enjoing in full their accrued retirement benefits. It was, also, further argued that the sub judice decision was not duly reasoned. Article 125.1 of the Constitution reads as follows : " 1. Save where other express provision is made in this Constitution with respect to any matter set out in this paragraph and subject to the provisions of any law, it shall betheduty of thePublicServiceCommissionto make the allocation of public offices between the two Communities and to appoint, confirm, emplace on the permanent or pensionable establishment, promote, transfer, retire and exercise disciplinary control over, including dismissal or removal from office of, public officers." Article 54 of the Constitution provides : " Subject to the executive power expressly reserved, under Articles 47, 43 and 49, to the President and the Vice626 President of the Republic, acting either separately or conjointly, the Council of Ministers shall exercise executive power in all other matters other than those which, under the express provisions of this Constitution, are within the competence of a Communal Chamber, including the following " : "(
3. a)". Section 6(
4. f)of the Pensions Law, Cap. 311, provides that a pension, gratuity or other allowance may be granted to a public officer in case of termination of his employment in the public interest. Section 7 of the said Law lays down that where a public officer's service is terminated on the ground that, having regard to the conditions of the public service, the usefulness of the officer thereto and all the other circumstances of the case, such termination is desirable in the public interest, and a pension, gratuity or other allowance cannot otherwise be granted to him under the provisions of the Law, Cap. 311 (supra), the Governor (now the Council of Ministers) may if he thinks fit, grant him such pension, gratuity or other allowance as he thinks just and proper, not exceeding in amount that for which the officer would be eligible if he retired from service in the circumstances described in paragraph (
5. e)of section 6 of Cap. 311 (i.e. in case of retirement on medical grounds). In dismissing the recourse on all grounds, the Court: Held, I. As to the issueof the alleged competence of the Public Service Commission and the alleged lack of competence of the Council of Ministers in the matter in view of Article 125.1 of the Constitution :

Article 54of the Constitution. Held, II. As to the argumentregarding discrimination and unequaltreatment :

Article 54of the Constitution.

The next point whichhas beenraised by the*Applicant;andwith which it is necessary to deal in this Judgment, is that the 631 1967 Nov. 11 LEONTIOS PAPALEONTIOU v. REPUBLIC (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS AND ANOTHER) 1967 Nov. 11 LEONTIOS PAPALEONTIOU v. REPUBLIC (COUNCIL O F MINISTERS AND ANOTHER) Apphcant has been the victim of unequal and discriminatory treatment in view of the fact that two other, already mentioned, Court Stenographers, Mr. Sarkissian and Mr. Karaviotis, were treated as retired in the public interest, enjoying in full their accrued retirement benefits. The earlier decision of the Council of Ministers in the case of Mr. Sarkissian (No. 5004) is dated the 16th September, 1965, (see exhibit 23>. He had applied on the 11th August, 1965, for leave to retire from the public service "on grounds of public policy". It appears that when the matter came for the first time before the Council of Ministers the issue of the competence of the Council to deal with it was examined by the Attorney-General; and his advice—correct in my view—is part of the submission to the Council regarding the case of Mr. Sarkissian (see exhibit 23). Mr. Sarkissian, as it appears from the submission in question, had been serving in the public service since 1947,and had been holding the post of Court Stenographer 1st grade since 1954. He had been receiving the maximum salary of the relevant salary scale for nine years past. At the material time he was forty-two years old. On all the material before me, regarding the cases of Mr. Sarkissian, of Mr. Karaviotis and of the Applicant, I cannot say that I am satisfied that the Council of Ministers was not reasonably entitled, in the exercise of its discretion, to treat the Applicant's case differently from the cases of Mr. Sarkissian and of Mr. Karaviotis; thus, no question of unequal treatment or discrimination could arise. The cases of Mr. Sarkissian and of Mr. Karaviotis appear to be essentially different from that of the Applicant because, though all three of them were leaving the public service in order to serve the United Nations, sight must not be lost of the fact that Mr. Sarkissian and Mr. Karaviotis were at the time aged forty years or more, they had reached the top grade of Court Stenographers, as well as the top of their salary scale, many years ago, and they had no further prospects of promotion; on the other hand, the Applicant was only thirty-one years old,'he was still a,Court Stenographer 2nd grade and, thus, he had prospects of promotion; he was not at a dead end like Mr. Sarkissian and Mr. Karaviotis. 632 It has been argued by counsel for the Applicant that the Councilof Ministers Hadacted without competence when dealing earlier on;in the way it diU,with the application of the Applicant for a year's leaveof absence without pay; arid that the competent organ to deal with such application was the Public.Service Commission; counsel.Has submitted that had the Council known that it had acted,without competence in that matter, it would, perhaps, have taken a different view regarding the request bf the Applicant that his resignation should, be treated as termination,of services in the public,interest; also; that the Applicant must Have been influenced, by his failure to obtain a year's leave, ih deciding to submit his resignation! .1quite accept, that the Applicant decided to resign froni the public service when he found that.he could riot obtain a year's leave of absence ;without pay. But, irrespective of whether or riot the Council acted with or without competence ih dealing with the question of such leave, the fact remains that the matter of the leave and tHe matter of treating the resignation of the Applicant as terrriihatibn of services in tHepublic interest were two absolutely separate matters; they did not form part of a composite administrative action in any way. Nor can 1 find, on the material before me, any proper causation link between the subjudice decision arid the previous decision of the Council of Miriisters on the question of the leave applied for by the Applicant. The realities of the situation should riot be lost sight of: The Applicant, first, secured employment with the United Nations abroad. Then, he tried to put himself in a position to take up such employriient with as little harm to his interests—as he saw thern—as possible. So he applied, initially, for a year's leaveof absence without pay and then, when this did not become possible, he decided to resign arid to apply that his resignation be treated as termination of services in the public interest. In the present recourse, we are only concerned with the refusal of his second application and we cannot enter into the validity of what was done or was riot done in relation to his first application; the Applicant could have challenged the decision reached on such application but he did not do so. Lastly, regarding the complaint that the sub judice decision of the Council of Ministers is not duly reasoned I find no merit therein, in view of the fact that the reasons which led to such decision can be amply derived from the relevant submission 633 1967 Nov. 11 .. .LEONTIOS PAPALEONTIOU . .V. REPUBLIC (COUNCIL OF .MINISTERS AND ANOTHER) 1967 Nov. 11 LEONTIOS PAPALEONTIOU V. REPUBLIC (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS AND ANOTHER) to the Council of Ministers (which is part of exhibit22); it is well estabUshed that the reasoning behind an administrative decision may be found either in the decision itself or in the official records related thereto. For all the above reasons this recourse fails and isdismissed accordingly. Regarding costs, 1 have decided, in all the circumstances of the Case, to make no order as to costs. Application dismissed. No orderas to costs. 634