clr/1983/1983_3_827.pdf

(1983)1980. On 25.4.1980 the Commission addressed a letter to the Director-General Ministry of Finance requesting him to take the necessary steps for thefixingof the salary of the applicants in accordance with section 2(c)* of Part Β of the Schedule to the Public Service (Increase of Salaries and Restructuring of Salary Scales and Certain Offices) Law, 1979, (Law No.58/79), because it has been ascertained that there are officers serving to the post of Customs and Excise Officer, 2nd Grade, whose salary in theirfinal scale is atapoint of itsdownwards extension. The Ministry of Finance acting in pursuance of the above section 2(c), decided that the applicants must be placed from the date of their appointment at the point of £1668, which is a downwards extension of scale A6 andapplicantswere informed of this decision by a letter of the Commission dated 27.8.1980. Hence this recourse. 5 10 15 Counsel for the applicants mainly contended: (

1. a)That the offer of appointment and its acceptance by the applicants constituted an administrative contract, subject to the conditions as to salary, etc. as stated therein; and that such condition, cannot be changed, because the applicants have acted on the basis of such offer which they accepted and have acquired a right to receive that salary and any interference with such right will be detrimental to them and was illegal. (
2. b)That the sub judice decision constituted an indirect revocation of part of the act of appointment of the applicants which was not permitted since the act of appointment has produced results the changing of which caused damage to the applicants; and that the reasonable time within which the decision as to the salary of the applicants could be revoked, has come to an end with thepayment to them of their first salary and the decision could not be revoked thereafter. Held,(I)thattherelationshipbetween theStateandits officers, is not contractual but it constitutes a relationship of public 35 law; that, therefore, the appointment of the applicants was not a contractualactbutanadministrative act;andthat,accordSection 2(
3. c)s quoted at p. 838 post. 828 20 25 30 3 C.L.R. Georgblou and Others v. Republic ingly,theconditions attached thereto could be changed; accordingly contention (
4. a)should fail. 5 10 15 20 25

(2)That since by virtue of section 7 of Law 58/79 the salary of the applicants on their appointment should have been determined only by the Minister of Finance the determination of their salary bytherespondentCommission wasmadecontrary to the provisions of suchLawand istherefore illegal;that, further, even if one takes theview that since the fixing of the salary was depending on factual considerations, that is whether there existed in fact any other officers on the downwards extension of the scale, then, again, the act is considered to be illegal as based on a misconception of fact.

(3)That the revocation of an unlawful administrative act is a course lawfully open to the administration it is based on the notion of the preservation of legality and has to be effected within a reasonable period of time; that the question whether or not the time which has elapsed is reasonable, is a matter for the Court to decide; that bearing in mind that the mistake was discovered after the payment of the first salary of the applicants and that the respondent Commission applied as early as the 24th May, 1980,to the Ministry of Finance for the correct fixing of the salaries of the applicants, the revocation of the salary offered to the applicants and its substitution by the correct one was made under the circumstances of the case, within a reasonable time; accordingly contention (b) should fail. Application dismissed. Cases referred to: Paschali v. The Republic

(1966)3 C.L.R. 593 at p. 607; 30 Karayiannisv. The Republic

(1974)3C.L.R. 420at pp.433-434; Yiangou v. Republic

(1975)3 C.L.R.228 at pp.240-244;and on appeal

(1976)3 C.L.R. 101 at pp. 105, 106; Michaelv. Republic

(1979)3 C.L.R. 499 at pp. 500-502; 0 ' Mahony v. Republic

(1979)3 C.L.R. 571 at pp. 579-582. 35 ' Recourse. Recourse against the"decision of the respondents whereby it 829 Georghiou and Others v. Republic

(1983)was decided that the emplacement of applicants on scale A6 of 1.1.1980 be extended 4 points downwards. L. Papaphilippou, for applicants. CI. Antoniades, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. Cur. adv.vult. SAVVIDES J. read the followingjudgment. The tenapplicants in this case,pray for adeclarationof theCourt thattheactand/ or decision of the respondents which is contained in the letter of theChairmanof thePublicService Commissiondated27.8.80, 10 whereby it was decided that the emplacement of the applicants on scale A6 of 1.1.1980 is extended 4 points downwards, is null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever. The facts of the case are as follows: All applicants hold the post of Customs and Excise Officer, 2nd Grade, having been 15 appointed so on the 15th April,

1. The posts in question were published in the official Gazette on 11.5.
2. According tothesaid publication,copy of which is attached to the opposition as enclosure 1, the salary for the said post was £696χ 35 -906 χ42 - 1200, which was old scale 7 20 inforce at thetime. Incase any of thepersons appointedhada University Degree or Diploma (which was considered to be an advantage), they could be emplaced on the scale £926 χ 42 1,220,which was old scale 9in force at that time. Inaddition to the above salaries, a percentage of 19% had to be added in 25 both cases, in accordance with the Public Officers (Increase of Salaries) Law, 1977, (Law No. 56/77). All applicants are holders of a University degree or title. Before the procedure for the filling of the posts was com­ pleted,thePublic Service (Increaseof Salaries and Restructuring 30 of Salary Scales and CertainOffices) Law, 1979(Law 58/79), was enacted with retrospective effect as from the 1st January, 1979 under theprovisions of which the salary scales of public officers were restructured and some of the scales were amalgamated with others with the result that posts in the previous scale 7 35 came under scale 6 of the new scales. No differentiation is made for the emplacement of holders of University Degree or Diploma in higher scale thanthosewho have no such qualifica.830 5 3 C.L.R. Georghiou and Others v. Republic Savvides J. tion. Newscale 6bears a salary of£1860χ96-£2820inwhich the 19%increaseof salary underLaw 56/77 has been embodied. Law 58/79 provides that in readjusting thescales and salaries of the officers concerned, if the salary of an officer is lower than 5 the minimum salary provided by his new scale, such scale is extended downwards so many points, having regard to the amount ofhisannual increment,untilitreacheshisactualsalary and thereafter he receives incrementevery six monthsuntil he reaches his new scale. It provides, moreover, that in the case 10 of new appointments onthebasis of the new scales, whenthere areofficers serving atthesamepost as that of the newlyappoin­ ted officers, whosesalary scalehasbeensoextended downwards, the new officer cannotbe put in a better position than theold officer or officers and,therefore,his salary scaleis alsoextended 15 downwards accordingly,in order toreachthesalary of the said officers; thereafter he, also, receives his increments every six months until he reaches the new salary scale. If no other officers receiving lower salaries exist, then he is placed at the starting point of the new scale. 20 At its meeting of 23.2.1980, the respondent Commission considered the applications submitted as a result of thepubli­ cation in the official Gazette, anddecided to offer appointment to thepost of Customsand Excise Officer to a numberofcan­ didates amongstwhomtheapplicants. Onthe2ndApril, 1980, 25 the respondentCommissionsenttheusual offer of appointment to all applicants,withacopy of theusualconditions of appoint­ ment (enclosures 2 and 3 to the opposition). Condition3 of such offer, reads: 30 "
3. Salary: The salary scale of the post is: £1,860 - 96 - 2820." And with regard to applicant No. 10, who was, before his appointment tothepresentpost,a ClericalAssistant,paragraph , 2 of enclosure No. 3 reads: 35 **
4. With reference to paragraph 2 of the statement you will enterthe salary scale of thepost at £1,860per annum and you will be eligible to draw £1,956 per annum onthe 1st April,
5. Your future incrementaldate will be the 1st April." The applicantsacceptedtheabove offers of appointmentand 831 Savrfdes J. Georghiou and Others v. Republic

(1983)started working at their new posts on 15.4.1980, receiving the salary mentioned in the aforesaid offers. On 24.5.1980 the respondent Commission addressed a letter (enclosure No. 4) to the Director-General of the Ministry of Finance which reads as follows: 5 "I have instructions to refer to the appointment of 17 persons to the post of Customs and Excise Officer, 2nd Grade, in theDepartment of Customsand Excise, from the 15th April, 1980, and to request you to take the necessary steps for the fixing of their salary in accordance with 10 section 2(c) of Part Β of the Schedule to the Public Service (Increase of Salaries and Restructuring of Salary Scales and Certain Offices) Law, 1979, (Law No.58/79), because it has been ascertained that thereare officers serving tothe post of Customs and Excise Officer, 2nd Grade, whose 15 salary in their final scale is at a point of its downwards extension.

1. The persons appointed to the post of Customs and Excise Officer, 2nd Grade,from 15.4.1980 arethe following: 20
2. From the above the following were holding other posts in thePublic Service with a relevant salary as follows: Chrysostomos Hadjivassiliou 1.1.79 1.6.79 1.1.80 £1,318 £1,357 £1,
3. 25 In reply to theabove letter,the Ministry of Finance informed the respondent by letter(enclosure5)dated 16.7.1980 as follows: "I have instructions to refer to your letter No. 150/75/11 dated 24th May, 1980,concerningthesubject of the salaries of 17persons appointed to thepost of Customsand Excise 30 Officer 2nd Grade from 15.4.1980 and to inform you that in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service (Increase of Salaries and Restructuring of Salary Scales and Offices) Law, 1979 (Law No. 58/79) thesalary of the above officers is fixed as follows: 35 A.

(1)Costas Panayiotou Georghiou

(2)Argyroulla P. Eliotou

(3)832 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 Georghiou and Others v. Republic Savrtdes J.

(4)Kyriaki Georghiou Tappa

(5)Manolis Rotis

(6)Isidoros Giorghis

(7)Chrystalla Leonida Michael

(8)Androulla Constantinou Kourouzidou

(9)Christakis Pelavas

(10)Haris Christodoulou

(11)_

(12)_ _

(14)Chrysostomos Hadjivassiliou. , Inaccordance with section 2(c)(in cases Nos 1- 13)and 2(d)(incase No. 14)of Part Βof theScheduleof Law 58/79, all the above officers must be placed from the date of their appointmentat the point of £1668.- which is a downwards extension of scale A

1. Thereafter they will be entitled to increments every six months of service until they reach the starting salary of their scale. The respondent Commission then, informed the applicants accordingly, by letters dated 27.8.1980(enclosures 6 and 7)who, as a result, filed the present recourse. The grounds of law on which the application is based are, as set out in the application, as follows: 25 " 1 . The respondents acted in contravention of theprin"* ciples of good administration in that by the sub judice act or decision they revoked an act or decision which has pro­ duced direct rights in favour of the applicants, the revo­ cation of which causes irreparable damage to them. 30
2. The respondents have acted in abuse of powers in that they deprived the applicants of a right which they acquired by the conditions of their appointment. 35
3. The respondents acted in a way amounting to de­ ceiving the applicants in that it was not mentioned in the offer of appointment of the applicants that their scale would be extended downwards. The applicants accepted the appointment on the basis of the offer. 833 Savrides J. Georghiou and Others v. Republic

(29), 389

(34). Όθεν 35 αϊ διεπουσαι TOOS δημοσίους υπαλλήλου* διατάξει* είναι ελευθέρως μεταβλητά! υττό της νομοθετικής εξουσίας, περιο­ ριζόμενης μόνον υπό των περί προστασίας των μονίμων υπαλλήλων συνταγματικών διατάξεων: 236

(32), 965

(35), 834 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 Georghiou and Others v. Republic Sarvides J. 362

(39), 2156

(50). Επομένως oi δημόσιοι υπάλληλοι διέπονται ΰπό τών εκάστοτε Ισχυόντων περί τών δημοσίων υπηρεσιών νόμων καΐ ουδαμώςούτοι κέκτηνται τοδικαίωμα, όπως καθ' δλην τήι> σταδιοδρομίαν των διέπωνται ύπό τοϋ καθεστώτος (π.χ. ώς προς τό όριον ηλικίας, μισθολόγιον), Οπερ ίσχυε κατά τον χρόνον της εΙσόδου των είς τήν ύπηρεσίαν 236

(32), 965

(35), 362

(39), 2156

(50). Συμφωνίαι ή δηλώσεις τροποποιητικά! τών νομοθετικών τούτων διατάξεων (π.χ. επί τών αποδοχών),δέν εϊναι ϊσχυραΐ: 658

(30), 389

(34). *Η νομολογία εδέχθη, προ της Ισχύος τοϋ Ύπαλ. Κωδικός (ν.1811/51), ότι ό δ'ορισμός τοϋ υπαλλήλου δέν άποτελεϊ σύμβασιν, άλλα μονομερή πραξιν της διοικήσεως, τελειουμένην διά της δημοσιεύσεως: 459

(31), 56

(33)876

(37), 941

(38)". The English translation of which is as follows: 20 25 30 35 ("The case law accepts that the relationship between the State and its officers, not being contractual, constitutes a relationship of public law: 97

(29), 389

(34). Therefore, the provisions regarding the public officers are freely vari­ able by the legislative authority, restricted only by the con­ stitutional provisions with regard to the protection of permanent officers: 236

(32), 965

(35), 362

(39), 2156

(50). The public officers are therefore subject to the public ser­ vice laws in force from time to time and they in no way possess the right, to be subject to the same status (e.g. with regard to age, salary), which was in force at the time of their entering the service 236

(32), 965

(35), 362

(39), 2156

(50). Agreements or statements amending these legal provisions (e.g. about emoluments), are not valid: 658

(30)389

(34). The case law had accepted, before the Public Service Code (law 1811

(51)) came into operation, that the appoint­ ment of the officer does not constitute a contract, but a unilateral act of the administration, finalised by the publi­ cation; 459

(31), 56

(33), 876

(37), 941

(38)." 835 Savvtdes J. Georghiou and Others v. Republic

(1983)See, also, Paschali and TheRepublic

(1966)3 C.L.R. p. 593, where at p. 607 it was held that "The appointment of a public officer is an administrative act, not a mere contractual engagement." Theviewtaken by theCourts is also strengthened by thefact 5 thatanydisputes arising outofsuchrelationshiparenot resolved by the Civil Courts but are tried by the administrative Courts. Moreover the conditions of the appointment are not the result of an agreementreachedbetween theparties but arefixed by the Government either on the strength of Regulations or, as in the 10 case of the salary offered to theappointees,by law, andcannot be altered or waived by agreement. On thebasis of theabove, Ifind that theappointmentof the applicants is not a contractual act but an administrative act. I come now to examine whether the salary originally offered 15 to the applicants on their appointmentcould be changed after­ wards. Counsel for applicants has argued in this respect, that the existence of officers whose salary is less than the scale provided for the post, is a matter of fact which the applicants did not 20 know and no mention was made in the offer of appointment about any downwards extension of their scale. That the sub judice decision constitutes an indirect revocation of part of the act of appointment of the applicants which is not permitted since the act of appointmenthas produced results thechanging 25 of which causes damage to the applicants. Finally, he argued that the reasonable time within which the decision as to the salary of the applicants could be revoked, has come to anend with the payment to them of theirfirst salary and the decision could not be revoked thereafter. 30 Counsel for the respondents on the other hand argued that the fixing of the salary of the applicants by the respondent Commission was made contrary to the provisions of the Law, that is contrary to sections 6and 7 and 2(c) and 2(d)of PartΒ of the Scheduleto Law 58/79and could therefore berevoked as 35 being contrary to law, and further, that such revocation was made within a reasonable time. 836 3 C.L.R. . Georghloa and Others •. Republic Sarvfdca J. Both counsel have made references to certain Greek authors on the point of revocation of an administrative act to the effect that an illegal administrative act may be revoked if it has pro­ ducedrightsinfavour of theapplicant,provided such revocation 5 is made within a reasonable time. (See, for example, Stas· sinopoulos "Lessons on Administrative Law" 1957 ed. p. 258 260; Conclusions from the Case Law of the GreekCouncil of State 1929 - 1959, pp. 201 - 204; Tsatsos "Studies on Admi­ nistrative Law" 1957, pp. 12 - 16; and, also, Dagtogbu "Go10 neral Administrative Law" 1977, vol. A pp. 179 - 186.) I have to examine first whether the act concerned, i.e. the offer of the salary mentioned in the offer of appointment, is a legal act. Section 6 of Law 58/79and paragraphs 2(c) and 2(d) of Part 15 Β of the Schedule incorporated under section 6

(1)and to which reference is made in the letter of the Minister of Financeto the respondent Commission, read as follows: 20 25 30 35 "6.-(l) Τηρουμένων τών διατάξεων τοϋ εδαφίου

(2), ό μισθός παντόςδημοσίου υπαλλήλου αναπροσαρμόζεται συμφώνως τιρός τάς διατάξει* τοϋ Παραρτήματος.

(2)Έν ifj τοιαύτη αναπροσαρμογή"6 Υπουργός ΟΙκονομικών κέκτηται έξουσίαν όπως αρηοιασδήποτε ανωμαλίας αΐτινες δυνατόν να προκύψωσι περιλαμβανομένων ανωμα­ λιών είς περιπτώσεις διορισμού,προαγωγής ήαποσπάσεως δημοσίου υπαλλήλου είς δημοσίαν θέσιν μεταξύ της 1ης Ιανουαρίου 1979 καΐ τής ημερομηνίας δημοσιεύσεως τοϋ παρόντος Νόμουέν TTJέπισήμωέφημερίδιτής Δημοκρατίας". ("6.-

(1)Subject to theprovisions of s-section 2, thesalary of every public officer is re-adjusted according to theprovisions of the schedule.

(2)In such re-adjustment the Minister of Finance has power to remove any anomalies which might result includ­ ing anomalies incase of appointment,promotionor second­ mentof a pubUcofficer toapublic office between 1stJanua' ry, 1979 and the date of publication of the present law in the official Gazette of the Republic"), 837 Sawides J. Georghiou and Others v. Republic

(1983)sub-paragraphs (

1. c)and (
2. d)of Paragraph 2 of Part Β of the schedule read: (γ) Έφ όσον υπάρχει οίοσδήποτε υπάλληλος τοϋ οποίου . ά μισθός επί της τελικής κλίμακας του ευρίσκεται έφ' οΐουδή- 5 ποτέ σημείου της προς τά κάτω επεκτάσεως της τελικής κλίμακος οίαοδήποτε θέσεως, ό μισθός οίουδήποτε διορισθησομένου eis τήν αυτήν Θέσιν προσώπου καθορίζεται ύπό τοϋ Ύπουργοΰ Οίκονομικών είς τρόπον ώστε τοϋτο νά μή τίθεται μισθολογικώς είς πλεονεκτικωτέραν θέσιν έναντι 10 οιουδήποτε υπαλλήλου ήδη κατέχοντος τήν αυτήν θέσιν, τό ούτω 5έ διοριζόμενον πρόσωπον αρχίζει κερδίζον προοαύξησιν άι>ά έξάμηνον περίοδον υπηρεσίας μέχρις ότου φθάση τον άρχικόν μισθάν της τελικής κλίμακας του. Νοείται οτι είς περίπτωσιν καθ' ην ό μισθός ιού ύπαλ- 15 λήλου τοΰ ευρισκομένου έφ' οίουδήποτε σημείου τής προς τά κάτω επεκτάσεως της κλίμακας του έχει καθ' οΙονδήποτε τρόπον καθηλωθή, ό μιοθάς τοϋ διορισθησομένου είς τήν αυτήν θέσιν προσώπου καθορίζεται ύπό τοϋ Ύπουργοΰ ΟΙκονομικών είς τρόπον ώστε τούτο νά μή ζημιοϋται μισθό- 20 λογικώς ώς τής τοιαύτης καθηλώσεως. (δ) Ή υποπαράγραφος (γ) της παρούσης παραγράφου εφαρμόζεται καΐ είς τάς περιπτώσεις προαγωγής ή αποσπά­ σεως δημοσίου υπαλλήλου έάν άμισθός τόν όποιονδικαιούται νά λάβη ό υπάλληλος επί τή προαγωγή ή αποσπάσει 25 αύιοϋ είναι ίσος ή χαμηλότερος τοϋ σημείου επί της επεκτά­ σεως τής κλίμακος είς τό όποιον ευρίσκεται ό ήδη κατέχων τήν αυτήν θέσιν υπάλληλος. Έν εναντία περιπτώσει ούτος λαμβάνει έπΙ τη προαγωγή ή αποσπάσει αύτοϋ τόν μισθόν τάν όποΤον δικαιούται νά λάβη έπ! τη τοιαύτη προαγωγή 30 ή Αποσπάσει". ("(
3. c)When there is any officer whose salary on his final scale is on any step extending downwards of thefinal scale of any post, the salary of any person to be appointed to any post is fixed by the Minister of Finance in such a way that 35 such person will not be placed as from the salary point of view in a more advantageous position against any other officer already holding this post, and the so appointed 838 3 C.L.R. Georghiou and Others v. Republic Sawides J. personstartsearningincrementseverysixmonthsof service until he reaches the starting point of his final scale. 5 10 15 Provided that in a case in which the salary of an officer who ison any point extending downwardsof hisscale has in any way been stopped, the salary of the person to be appointed in such post isfixed by the Minister of Finance insuch a way as not to suffer damage inhis salary from such stoppage. (
4. d)Sub-paragraph (
5. c)of this paragraph is applied also in thecases of promotion or secondment of a public officer if the salary to which the officer is entitled to get on his promotion or his secondment is equal or lower than the point on the scale on which the officer already holding the post is. On the contrary he gets on his promotion or secondment the salary which he is entitled to get on such promotion or secondment"). By section 7 of Law 58/79 the provisions of the law were givenretrospective effect in thecaseof personsappointed in the public service between the 1stJanuary, 1979and thedate of the 20 publication ofthelawinthe official Gazette ofthe Republicand it is further provided that their salary on the old salary scales willbereadjusted from the.dateoftheirappointment onthenew scales in accordance with the provisions of the Law. It isclear from the aboveprovision that the salary of theap25 plicants on their appointment should have been determined by theMinister ofFinance inaccordance withtheprovisions ofthe Law. The determination of their salary by the respondent Commission was made contrary to the provisions of such Law and is therefore illegal. Even if one takes the view that since 30 thefixing ofthe salary wasdepending on factual considerations, that is whether there existed in fact any other officers on the downwards extension of the scale, then, again, the act isconsidered tobeillegalasbased on a misconception offact. See,in this respect, Dagtoglou (supra) p. 179and Conclusionsfrom the 35 CaseLaw of the GreekCouncil of State (supra) p. 201. The principles, therefore, of revocation of an illegal administrative act, apply in this case. Our Courts haveaccepted theaboveprinciple in a number of 839 Sawides J. Georghiou and Others v. Republic

(1983)cases,such as Karayiannis v.Republic

(1974)3C.L.R. 420,433434, Yiangou v. Republic

(1975)3C.L.R. 228,240- 244,where reference ismade to a number ofother authorities on thepoint; also, the same case on appeal, by which the judgment of the Court of first instance was upheld and which is to be found in 5

(1976)3 C.L.R. 101, 105 where it was stated that:"The revocation of an unlawful administrative act is a course lawfully open to the administration and it is based on the notion of the preservation of legality; the relevant principles areto befound inStassinopoullos on theLawof 10 Administrative Acts

(1951), at pp. 398 - 399; and it is useful to refer, too, to thedecisions of the Council of State in Greece in cases 796/1964, 1750/1965, 1531/1966. 3027/ 1967 and 458/1968". And at page 106, it is stated: , 15 "What is*a reasonableperiod oftime'isa matter which,as pointed out inthedecisionoftheCouncilofStateinGreece in case 1026/1966, depends on the circumstances of each particular case; and the relevant criteria have been set out by the said Council in its decision in case 518/1956; 20 whether ornot thetimewhichhaselapsedisreasonableisa matter for the Court to decide(see, in this respect, thedecisions of the same Council in cases 47/1963, 55/1963 and 430/1964)." See, also, the cases of Michael v. Republic

(1979)3 C.L.R. 25 499, 500 - 502; and O'Mahonyv. Republic

(1979)3 C.L.R. 571, 579 - 582. Having found that the revocation of an unlawful administrative act ispermissible, I havenow to examinewhether suchrevocation wasmade within a reasonable time. As stated in the 30 caseof Yiangouv.Republic(supra)atp. 106thequestionwhether or not the time which has elapsed isreasonable, isa matter for the Court todecide; and reference ismade tocasesNos,47/63, 55/63, and 430/64 of the Greek Council of State. Bearing in mind that the mistake was discovered after the 35 payment of the first salary of the applicants and that the respondent Commission applied asearlyasthe24th May, 1980,to the Ministry of Finance for the correct fixing of the salaries of the applicants, I find that the revocation of the salary offered 840 3 C.L.R. Georghiou and Others v. Republic Sawides J. to the applicants and its substitution by the correct one was made under the circumstances of the case, within a reasonable time and the recourse therefore fails on this ground. With regard to the allegation of the applicants raised by 5 ground 3,that is that the respondents in not mentioning in the offer of appointment that the scale would be extended downwards have deceived the applicants, this cannot stand. It is obvious that there has been a mistake in the act of fixing their salaryandthereisnothingtoimplythatthiswasdoneonpurpo10 se. It should not be overlooked that the salary of theposts as published in the official Gazette and on the basis of which the applicants submitted theirapplications,wasmuch lessthantheir salaries as finally readjusted by the Ministry of Finance. Lastly, with regard to the allegation in ground 4, that the 15 respondents did not take into account the fact that apphcant No. 10was in the public service since 1976, this is not correct and cannot stand either. It is clear from enclosure No. 4 (the letter of the Public Service Commission to the Ministry of Finance, dated 24.5.1980), which is cited earlier, and especially 20paragraph 3of suchletter, that thisfact wasalways inthemind oftherespondentsandinanycase,itisalsoclearfrom thewhole correspondenceandespeciallyenclosures4and 5that applicant's No. 10 salarywasnot lower thantheonehewasreceivinginhis previous post. 25 In theresult thisrecoursefails and istherefore dismissed, but in the circumstances I make no order for costs. Recourse dismissed. No orderas tocosts. 841