(1984)1984 July 21 [MALACHTOS, J.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146OF THE CONSTITUTION CHRISTODOULOS ARGYROU, Applicant, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND THE MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, Respondents. (Case No. 159/81)· Constitutional Law·—Equality—Principle of equality—Article 28 of thz Constitution—// safeguards only against arbitrary differentiations—Nothing submitted by applicant to bring his case within above principle. Administrative Law—Administrative acts or decisions—Reasoning— Supplemented by the material in the file which was before the respondents at time sub judice decision was taken. 5 After terminating applicant's services as a police inspector, in thepublicinterest, the Council of Ministersdecided to approve payment of pension to him but refused him payment in respect 10 of his vacation leave to which he was entitled on the day of the termination of his services. Hence this recourse which was directed against such refusal. Counsel for the applicant contended: (
- a)That the subjudice decision wascontrary toArticle 28.1 of the Constitution. 15 (
- b)That the sub judice decision was not duly reasoned. Held, that equality before the Law in paragraph 1 of Article 28 of the Constitution, does not convey the notion of exact arithmetical equality but it safeguards only against arbitrary 20 differentiations and does not exclude reasonable distinctions which have to be made in view of the intrinsic nature of things; 928 3 C.L.R. 'Argyrou v. Republic that nothing relevant has been submitted by Counsel·for applicant to bring his casewithin the above principle; .and that on the contrary, it is clear from the decision of the respondents that toalltheofficers whoseserviceswereterminated bythesaid decision,payment in respect of theirvacation leave-towhichthey were entitled, was not granted; accordingly contention (
- a)must fail. 5
(2)That the reasoning for the sub judice decision is supplemented by the material in the file which was before the-respondentsat thetimethedecisioncomplained ofwastaken; accordingly contention (b) must, also, 'fail. 10 Application dismissed. 15 Cases referred to: Mikrommatis v. Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. 125; Republicv. Arakian and Others
(1972)3 C.L.R. 294. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondents refusing payment to applicant in respect of his vacation'leavc to which he was entitled on 31.1.80 when his services were terminated by 20 the Council of Ministers in the public 'interest. N. Clerides, for the applicant. A. Vassiliades, for the respondents. •_Cur.adv. vult. MALACHTOS J. read the following judgment. The, applicant 25 in this recourse seeks a declaration of theCourt that thedecision of the respondents·dated 20.2.81 to refuse him.payment,in respect of his vacation leave to which he-was entitled up,to •31.1.80,is null and void and of no legal·effect whatsoever. The relevant,facts of the case are as.follows:30 The applicant enlisted in the Police Force on 12:5.52 and on 20.9.60 he was promoted to the rank of Sergeant. JDn 1.7.62 'he was promoted to.Sub-Inspector and on 5.7.74.he was promoted to Inspector. r By itsdccision,1No.i]7867 andrdatcd 31.H80 the'Council of 35 >MirUsters~tenninated.thc:services:of;the.applicant:as froml:2.80 tin'.the ·publicjinterest. i929 Malacbtos J. Argyrou τ. Republic
(1984)By letter dated 11.2.80the applicant was notified accordingly by the Chief of Police. On 13.3.80 the Council of Ministers decided to approve payment of pension to theapplicant in accordance with section 7 of the Pensions Law, Cap. 311. The Minister of Interior by 5 letter dated 3.5.80 notified the applicant that the Minister of Financehad given his approval to grant himan annual pension of £1,319.230 mils as from 1.2.80and a gratuity of £5,496.800 mils. However, by the same decision of 13.3.80theCouncil of Ministers also decided notto approve payment in respect of the 10 accumulated leave which was due to all dismissed officers, including the applicant. The applicant on the date of termination of his serviceshad to his credit 340 1/2 days of accumulated leave which heearned on the basis of regulation 13
(3)of the Police (General) Re- 15 gulations,
- By letter dated 30.5.80 the applicant, through his counsel, wrote to the Minister of Financeclaiming payment of the said accumulated leave. The Minister of Finance by letter dated 20.2.81, rejected theclaim of theapplicant. This letter reads as 20 follows: "I have been instructed to refer to your letter dated 30.5.80 concerning the claim of your client, Mr. Christodoulos Argyrou, a former Inspector of Police, for payment in respect of leave which he had to his credit on 31.1.80, and 25 to inform you that the Council of Ministers at its meeting of the 13.3.80, at which it decided to approve the granting of retirement benefits which eachoneof the officers, whose services were terminated in the public interest, had earned by his service, has also decided not to approve payment in 30 respect of vacation leavedueto theabove officers as onthe 31.1.
- Therefore, weregret thatwe are unable to satisfy the claim of your client". As a result the applicant on the 3.4.81 filed the present re course. Thegrounds of law onwhich thepresent recourse is based, as argued by counsel for applicant, are the following:
- That the subjudice decision is contrary to Article 28.1 of 930 35 3 C.L.R. Argyrou v. Republic Malachtos J. the Constitution which provides that all persons are equal before the Law, the Administration and Justice and arc entitled to equal protection thereof and treatment thereby; and
- That the sub judice decision is not duly reasoned. 5 As regards the first ground of law, i.e. the application of the principle of equality, this has been considered in the case of Mikrommatis v. The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. 125 where it was stated that equality before the Law in paragraph 1of Article 28 of the Constitution, does not convey the notion of exact artith10 metical equality but it safeguards only against arbitrary differentations and does not exclude reasonable distinctions which have to be made in view of the intrinsic nature of things. Inthecaseofthe Republicv.NishanArakian andOthers
(1972)3 C.L.R. 294, the authorities on this principle were reviewed by 15 the Full Bench of this Court. At page 299 of the report we read: "In Case 1273/65it was stated that the principle of equality entails the equal or similar treatment of all those who are found to be in the same situation. 20 25 In Case 1247/67 it was held that the principle of equality safeguarded by Article 3of the Greek Constitution of 1952 - which corresponds to Article 28.1 of our Constitution excludes only the making of differentiations which are arbitrary and totally unjustifiable and exactly the same was held in Case 1870/67. In Case 2063/68 it was held that the principle of equality was not contravened by regulating differently matters which were different from each other. 30 In Case 1215/69 it was held that the principle of equality is applicable to situations which are of the same nature." In the present case nothing relevant has been submitted by counsel for applicant to bringhiscasewithin theabove principle. On the contrary, it is clear from the decision of the respondents that to all the officers whose services were terminated by the 35 said decision, payment in respect of their vacation leavetowhich they were entitled, was not granted. Needlessto say that the granting of pension, gratuity, or other 931 Malacbtos J. Argyrou v. Republic
(1984)allowances in cases as the present one, is discretionary as provided by section 7 of the Pensions Law, Cap. 311. Coining now to the second ground of law, that the decision oftherespondentsisnotdulyreasoned, Ihold theviewthat this ground cannot stand either as the reasoning is supplemented by the material in the file which was before the respondents at the time the decision complained of was taken. 5 For the reasons stated above, this recourse fails and is dismissedbut under thecircumstances,Imakenoorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. No order as to costs. 10 932