(1984)1984 October 24 [L. Loizou, J.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION P.C. 3616 COSTAS PARPOULLIS, Apphcant, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE MINISTER OF INTERIOR AND DEFENCE, Respondent. (Case No. 97/81). P.C. 1571 ANDREAS VIOLARIS, Applicant. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE MINISTER OF INTERIOR AND DEFENCE, Respondtnt. (Case No. 106/81). Constitutional Law—Equality—Discrimination—Principle of equality —Article 28.1 of the Constitution—"Equal before the lav/' in the said Article doesnot conveythe rotion of exact arithmetical equality but it safeguards only against arbitrary differentiations and does not exclude reasonable distinctions which hare to be made in view of the intrinsic nature of things—Discrimination can only arise if different treatment is meted out in two cases which are similar in all material respects—Refusal to pay rer,t allowance to applicants under regulation 24
(1)(c) of the Police (General) Regulations, 1958-1980—And payment of such allowance to other officers—Latter, inter alia, living in houses built on their own land and registeredin their own names which they 996 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Parpoullls and Another τ. Republic have bMlf withfinancial assistance not granted to them gratis —Applicants livinginhouses not ownedby them but by the Govern ment which were constructedmainly at Government expense— In the light of the aboie circumstances differentiationbetween the two groups of officers net unreasonable and does not offend .against the provisions of Article 28.1 of the Constitution. Both applicants, whx weie police officers, were receiving. before 1974, a lent allowance on the basis of regulation 24(l)(c)* of the Police (General) Regulations 1958-1980 which m?kes provision for the payment of rent allowance under certain condi tions to a police officer, living either himself or his wife or a member of his family for the maintenanceof whom he is respon sible, in a house or flat belonging to him or his wife or such member of his family. In 1974, after the Turkiih invasion and the occupation by the Turkish troops of a large area in the territory of the Republic both applicants and their families were forced to leave their houses and thus they became displaced persons. Applicant in Case No.97/81 and thewife of applicant inCa^e No. 106/81 were granted, on the basis of theself-housing scheme introduced by government in order to assist displaced persons to acquire a place to live in, licences to built houses on govemmem land They were, also, granted financial assistance, gratis, in the region of £2,700 for each one of ihcm; and they have paid a sum over and above that granted to them gratis which in the case of applicant in Case No. 97/81 was about £1,800and inthe case of applicant in Case No. 105/81 was about £1,500. The houses they have constructed were government property since the land on which t'tey were built was government land. The respondent refused applicants' claim for a rent allowance, under the above regulalion and hence this recourse in which the sole issue for consideration was whether the said regulation 24
(1)and the sub judice refusal created any discrimination against the applicants vis-a-vis other members of the force. These members of the force were, also, displaced, and owned *'" Regulation 24(1XO is quoted at p. 1003post. 997 Parponllis and Another v. Republic
(1984)building sites on which they built their houses, again with financial assistance with the result that the houses so built were registered in their own names; and they, thus, received a rent allowance. The financial assistance which was granted to them though equal to that granted to the applicants was not granted to them gratis, as in the case of applicants, but 7/l5ths of it has to be repaid to government within ten years at 3% interest. 5 Held, "equal before the law" in paragraph 1 of Article 28 of the Constitution, does not convey the notion ofexact arithmetical equality but it safeguards only against arbitrary different- 10 iations and does not exclude reasonable distinctions which have to be made in view of the intrinsic nature of things; that, also, an instance of discrimination can only arise if different treatment ismeted outintwo caseswhichare similar in all material respects; that in the light of the circumstances of each group of officers 15 and having regard to the proper application of the principle ofequality asexpounded bythisCourt the differentiation between the two groups of officers cannot be said to be unreasonable and does not, therefore, offend against the provisions of Article 28.1 of the Constitution; accordingly the recourses must fail. 20 Appl'cations dismissed. Cases referred to: Mikrommatis v. Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. 125; Constantinou v. Republic
(1966)3 C.L.R. 572; Lordos & Sons (Limassol) Ltd. v. Water Board of Limassol
(1978)3 C.L.R. 215; Republic v. Arakian and Others
(1972)3 C.L.R. 294; Larkou v. Republic
(1974)3 C.L.R. 57. 25 Recourses. Recourses against the refusal of the respondent to grant appli- 30 cants rent allowance. N. Andreou, for the applicants. M. Florentzos, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 35 L. Loizou J. read the following judgment. These two recourses were, on the application of the parties, heard together 998 3 C.L.R. Parpoullis and Another v. Republic L. Loizou J. as they present common questions of lawand are based on the same facts. Applicants by their applications apply for the following relief: 5 10 (a) A declaration of the Court that the decision and/or reply and/or act of the respondent Minister dated 3rd January, 1981, file No. 159/9 is void ab initio and of no legal effect whatsoever; and (b) A declaration that the applicants are entitled to rent allowance byvirtue of regulation 24
(1)(c)ofthe Police (General) Regulations in force. The facts are not in dispute and are briefly as follows: Both applicants are police officers and werereceiving, before 1974, a rent allowance on the basis of regulation 24(l)(c)of the Police (General) Regulations, 1958-1980 which makes 15 provision for the payment of rent allowance under certain conditions to a police officer living either himself or his wife or a member of his family for the maintenance of whom he is responsible in a house or flat belonging to him or his wife or such member of his family. 20 In 1974, after the Turkish invasion and the occupation by theTurkishtroopsofalargeareaintheterritory oftheRepublic both applicants and their families were forced to leave their houses and thus they became displaced persons. Applicant in Case No. 97/81 and the wife of applicant in 25 Case No. 106/81 were granted, on the basis of the self-housing scheme introduced by government in order to assist displaced persons to acquire a place to live in, licences to built houses on government land; financial assistance was also granted to • them for the purpose of building the said houses. Both appli30 cants, however, had to pay a sum over and above that granted to them in order to complete the building of their respective houses which sum in the case of applicant in Case No. 97/81 amounted to about £1,800- and in the case of applicant in Case No. 106/81 to about £1,500.- The houses in question are 35 government property since the land on which they are built is government land. This is also expressly provided in clauses 3(i) and 8 of the relative agreements incorporating the terms of the licences (exhibit 7)which providethat both the land and 999 L. Lolzou J. Parpoollls and Another τ. Republic
(1984)the buildings are the property of thegovernment. By clause 7 of the same agreements the duration of the licences is for' a period of one year but they are automatically renewed unless tenninated by either of the parties giving to the other two months' notice. 5 In 1978, another member of the force who was in thesame positionastheapplicantsappliedfor thegrantof rentallowance and the police depattmentsought the advice of the AttorneyGeneral onthe matter (exhibit 8). Theoffice of the AttorneyGeneral by letter dated 21st September, 1978 (exhibit 9) signed 10 by a counselof the Republicadvised theChiefof Policethatin his opinion on the basis of the relevant regulations in force there was no obligation for the grant of tent allowance tothe officer in question. Thereafter the matter was discussed with the Ministry of 15 Finance (Personnel Department)and it would appear that it was decidedthatthefollowingpolicywithregardtothe payment of rent allowance would apply: (
- a)In the cases of houses built on self-owned building sites a rent allowance will be granted as in the case 20 of membersof theforce who owned theirownhouses. (
- b)In the cases of houses built on government building sites no rent allowance will be granted and (
- c)In thecases where a housein provided ingovernment housing estates which are built by government again 25 no rent allowance will be granted. This decision was incorporated in the Police Weekly Orders dated 11th February, 1980,andwas published for the inform ation of the members of the police force (exhibit 6). Both applicants then applied by similar letters dated 21st 30 November, 1980 (exhibits 1 and 2) addressed to the Minister of the Interior for the grant of rent allowance to them setting out the following grounds:
(1)That they are displaced persons to whom a licence was granted to built on government land.
(2)That a sum was granted to them for the purpose of building their houses to which they had to add a sum 1000 35 3 C.L.R. rarpoullis and Another v. Republic L. Lolzou J. of their own over and above the grant given in order to complete the houses. 5 10
(3)That the houses in question are not their own property but government property, and compared with the position of other colleagues of theirs, who, being displaced persons also and the owners of building sites were granted asumbythegovernmentforthepurposeofbuildingthereon they are discriminated against because a rent allowance is paid to the other officers who built on their own land and are, therefore, the owners of the houses so built. The applicants were informed by facsimile letters dated 3rd January, 1981(exhibits 3and4)that, on the basisoftheadvice of the Attorney-General their applications were not approved. As a result theyfiledthe present recourses which are based 15 on the ground that the decision of the respondent is unjust and/or aibitrary and/or was taken in excess and/or abuse of discrUionaiy powers and/or amounts to discrimination and/or iscontraryto theprovisionsofArticle28.1and 2oftheConstitution and/or contrary to regulation 24(l)(
- c)of the Police 20 (General) Regulations. Therecourses weredulyfixedfor hearing but were adjourned several timeson the application of both counsel as negotiations were in progress with a view to an out of Court settlement. In the meantime counsel of the Republic who was appearing 25 for the respondent in both cases wrote to the Director-General of the Ministiy of the Interior informing him that at a meeting which he had together with another counsel of'the Republic who was initially dealing with one of the two recourses and counsel for the applicants and a representative of the police 30 force they arrived at the conclusion that it was possible that the refusal to grant the ient allowance in question might be considered as discriminatory treatment by the Supreme Court for the following reasons: 35 - (
- a)Arent allowance is granted on the basis of regulation 24(I)(
- c)to married members of the police force who own a house. (
- b)Arent allowance is also granted to married members 1001 L. Loizou J. ParpouIUs and Another v. Republic (19&4) of the police force whopayrent exceeding 3%oftheir basic salary on the basis of regulation 24(l)(b). (
- c)In the case of the applicants in the present case no rent allowance isgranted, although thoy liveinhouses built at their own expense including the sum granted 5 to them as a loan on the basis of the self-housing scheme on government land provided for the purpose. It should be noted that on the basisof such grant and the known terms of the self-housing contracts the building sites do not belong to the applicants. As 10 a result the buildings also do not belong to them although they are in the end burdened with the greatest part of the expenses for the building of the houses. Inthe result the membersofthepoliceforce whobuilt houses on the basis of the self-housing schemes capi- 15 talize their own money instead of paying a monthly rent. Counsel concluded his letter by stating that the above were put before the Ministei of the Interior at a meeting between them who asked him to write this letter. 20 The Minister then asked for the petsonal advice of the Attorney-General who by a letter dated 25th September, 1982, informed him that he was inclined to the view that the legal position was correctly stated in the lettei of counsel of the Republic, exhibit 5. Pausing here for a moment it may be pointed out that the statement at paiagiaph (
- c)ofthe above letter (exhibit 5)to the effect that the grant to the applicants wai by way of a loan is not quite accurate. It was at a latei stage of the proceedings ascertained and 30 clarified by counsel aftei a question put by the Couit to that effect, that the financial assistance icceived by the applicants isgratis and not bywayof aloan whereas inthe casesof other membeis of the force who built on their own land and have receivedthe same financial assistance, 7/15ths thereof is by 35 wayofa loanwithinterestat3%repayableintenyearsandonly 8/I5ths is gratis (exhibit 11). Counselfor applicants hasargued that thereisdiscriminatory tieatment in the case of the applicants who have built their 1002 25 3 C.L.R. Parpoullis and Another v. Republic L. Loizou J. houses on government land partly at their own expense and partly with financial assistance granted to them by the government, vis-a-vis other members of the force, also displaced, who, because they owned building sites and have built on them, 5 again with government financial assistance, with the result that the houses so built are registered in their own names, leceivc a rent allowance. Counsel for the respondents argued that there is no discrimination against the applicants in the application of the law 10 since they do not belong to the groups of persons covered by regulation 24
(1)or by the decision published in the "Weekly Order" exhibit 6. The question therefore, to be decided, it was counsel's submission, is whether regulation 24
(1)and/or exhibit 6 create discrimination against the applicants. 15 The sole point, therefore, that has to be decided is whether regulation 24
(1)of the Police General Regulations, 1958-1980 and exhibit 6 create any discrimination against the applicants. Regulation 24
(1)of the Police (General) Regulations, 1958 as amended reads as follows: 20 "24
(1): Any married police officer who is not separated from his wife and (
- a)is not provided by government with quarters; and (
- b)pays rent in excess of 3 % of his basic salary; or 25 30 (
- c)cither he or his wife or any member of his family for the maintenance of whom he is responsible resides in a house or flat owned by him or his wife or such member of his family in respect of which the rental of a comparable house or flat in the same locality exceeds 3 % of his basic salary (hereinafter called 'notional rent') shall be eligible for assistance from government in the form of rent allowance". Article 28.1 and 2 of the Constitution reads as follows: 35 "28.1: All persons are equal before the law, the administration and justice and are entitled to equal protection thereof and treatment thereby. 2: Every person shall enjoy allthe rights and liberties piovided 1003 L. Loizou J. Parpoullis and Another v. Republic
(1984)for in this Constitution without any direct or indirect discrimination against any person on the ground of his community, race, religion, language, sex, political or other convictions, national or social descent, birth, colour, wealth, social class, or on any ground whatsoever, unless there is 5 express provision to the contrary in this Constitution". It has been held in a number of cases that "equal before the law" in paragraph 1of Article 28 of the Constitution, does not convey the notion of exact arithmetical equality but it safeguards only against arbitrary differentiations and docs not exclude 10 reasonable distinctions which have to be made in view of the intrinsic nature of things. See Mikrommatis and The Republic^ 2 R.S.C.C., 125 which has been followed in a great number of other cases. It has also been held that an instance of discrimination can 15 only arise if different treatment is meted out in two cases which are similar in all material respects. (See Constantinou v. The Republic
(1966)3 C.L.R. 572 following in this respect the case of Mikrommatis. Also Lordos & Sons (Limassol) Ltd. v. The Water Board of Limassol.
(1978)3 C.L.R. 215). 20 In the case of The Republic v. Arakian and Others
(1972)3 C.L.R. 294 a claim by a number of pensioner public officers that they should be paid a cost-of-living allowance tied to the cost of livingindex in the same manner as in the case of serving public officers was dismissed as not contravening the principle 25 of equality, safeguarded by Article 28.1 of the Constitution, on the ground that the applicants were not found in the same situation as serving public officers. The relevant part of the judgment is to be found at pp. 298-302 of the report where reference is made to a number of other cases on the subject. 30 Likewise, in the case of Larkou v. The Republic
(1974)3 C.L.R. 57 arefusal-to pay rent allowance to a public officer who was residing in a town other than his station whilst such allowance was paid to other officers residing within five miles from their station, was found not to amount to discrimination and the 35 differentiation was held to be a reasonable one. At p. 61 of the above report it is stated: "I cannot accept the view that the paragraph in question cUscriminates against public officers in the same position as the applicant. On the contrary it seems to me that the 40 1004 3 C.L.R. 5 Parpoullis and Another v. Republic L. Loizou J. distinction made between the officers who rent a house in their station and reside therein from those who, for whatever reason, choose not to reside in their station but in another town is a reasonable one; and does not in any way offend against the principle of equality safeguarded by Article 28.1 of the Constitution. (See theRepublic v. Nishan Arakianandtwo Others
(1972)3C.L.R. 294". Reverting to the facts of the present case one may see from the documentary evidence produced that the applicants do not 10 belong to the group of officers to whom a rent allowance is paid under regulation 24(l)(c) of the Police (General) Regulations and there are certain differences between the group of officers to which the applicants belong and the other group of officers with whom comparison is sought to be made. In 15 thecaseoftheapplicantstheydonotownthehousestheylivein, they belong to government and although they have spent a sum of their own they were mainly constructed at government expense. They have paid a sum over and above that granted to them by the government which, as stated earlier on, in the 20 case of applicant in Case No. 97/81 was about £1,800 and in the case of applicant in Case No. 106/81 was about £1,
- Thesumgrantedtoeachbywayofassistancegratiswas£2,
- The other group ofofficers with whomcomparison issought to be made are also displaced but they have built their houses 25 on their own land. It istrue that a sum was granted to them by the government with a view to assisting them in building the said houses under the government self-housing scheme but this amount which was equal to that granted to the applicants was not, however, granted to them gratis, as in the case of the 30 applicants, but7/15ths of it has to be repaid to government within ten years at 3% interest. In the light of the above circumstances and havingregard to the proper application of the principle of equality as expoundedbythisCourtIhavetoconcludethatthe differentiation 35 betweenthetwogroupsofofficerscannotbesaidtobeunreasonable and does not, therefore, offend against the provisions of Article 28.1 of the Constitution. Intheresulttheserecoursesfail andtheyareherebydismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 40 Recourses dismissed. No order asto costs. 1005