3 C.L.R. 1987December22 (A LOIZOU.SAWIDES,LORIS,STYL1ANIDESAND KOURRIS,JJ ] 1 PHRINI PAPADOPOULLOU, 2 AL1KIFEREOU, Appellants, ν T H E CYPRUS B R O A D C A S T I N G C O R P O R A T I O N , T H R O U G H 1 T H E B O A R D O F CYPRUS B R O A D C A S T I N G C O R P O R A T I O N , A N D 2 T H E DIRECTOR - GENERAL O F CYPRUS B R O A D C A S T I N G CORPORATION, Respondents (RevtsionalJunsdiction Appeal No 553) Legitimate interest — Free and voluntary acceptance of an administrative act— Depnves acceptor oflegitimate interestto challenge it 5 Constitutional Law—Equality —Constitution, Art 28—Public Officers— Equal pay for equal work — Differential basedon sexisinconsistent with the notion of equality — Differential based on senionty on the totality ofthe circumstancesof a case is permissible The appellants are Announcers/Newsreaders {radio and television) in the employment of the respondent Corporation 10 On 13 1S3 the appellants were appointed to the permanent post of Announcer/Newsreader radio and television with effect from 1 2 83 in the salaryscale of A8/9. By letterdated21 2 83offersofappointmentwithdetailedtermsof service, including date of commencement and salary,were givento them 15 20 By letter dated 84 83 they asked for their appointments to be made retrospective, at the latest as from the31st December, 1981 andfor emplacement onscaleA10, inordertobeaccordedequaltreatmentwiththeir male counterparts,who hadbeen emplacedon scaleA10 Thatletterwas not favouredwithanyreply As a result the appellants filed a recourse to this Court. The trial Judge found that the appellants did not possess aletftlmasc Interest to challenge their emplacement to scale A679, because of their free and voluntary acceptance of their such emplacement. He further foundthat the appellants 1685- Papadopoullou & Anotherv. C.B.C.
(1987)were entitled to proceed with their complaint on the ground of sex and or other discnmination in violation of Article 28 of the Constitutionis so far as they have not been accorded subsequently to the appointment equal treatmentwiththeirmalecounterparts Attheend,however, therecourse was dismissed asthemale counterpartsof theappellantswere emplacedonscale A10 because of theirlongerservice 5 Hence this appeal The respondentscross-appealed, contendingthatthe appellants did notpossess a legitimate interest topursue theircomplaint for sex discnmination Held,d/smiss/ngtheappeal
(1)Voluntary andunreserved acceptanceofan 10 administrative actor decision depnves theperson concernedof a legitimate interest entitling him tofile a recourse for annulmentunderArticle 146 2 of theConstitution Theacceptancemay be expressed or implied Itmustbe free and voluntary, which itisnotif ithas been brought aboutby pressure of theprejudicial consequencesofnon-acceptance Inthelightofthefactsofthis 1 5 case, the appellants were depnved of legitimate interest to challenge their emplacement toscale A8/9
(2)The notionof «equal pay for equal work· inrelationtopublic officers is an integral part of thepnncipleof equality Theoutmodedbelief thataman because of hts role in society, should be paid more than a woman, even 2 0 though his duties are the same, is contrary to modem thought and inconsistentand contrarytoour Constitution Differential based onsenionty onthetotalityof thecircumstancesof acase ispermissible anddoesnotinfringe thepnncipleof equality Inthiscasethere was nodifferentiation duetosex 25
(3)As theappeal isdoomedtofailure,thereisnoneedtoexaminetheissue raised by the cross - appeal Suchissueisleft open Appeal andcross-appeal dismissed No orderas tocosts 30 Casesreferredto TheRepublic ν Vassiliades
(1967)3 C LR 82, Pikisν TheRepublic
(1968)3 C LR 303, Republic ν Lefkos Georghiades
(1972)3 CLR 594, ThePresidentof the Republic ν Louca andAnother
(1984)3 C LR 241, Paschali ν Republic
(1966)3 C LR 593; Ptpens ν Republic
(1967)3C LR 295, 1686 35 3 C.L.R. Papadopoullou &Another v. C-B.C. loannou andOthersν Republic
(1968)3CLR 146, Antomou ν Republic
(1968)3CLR 452, loannou ν TheGram Commission
(1968)3 C LR 612, Markouν Republic
(1968)3CLR 267, 5 Pencleousv Republic 11971)3CLR 141 Mynanthisν Republic
(1977)3 CLR 165, HadjiConstantinouandOthersν Republic
(1980)3CLR 184, Tomboliν CYTA
(1980)3CLR 266,andonappeal
(1982)3CLR 149, Neocleous andOthersν Republic
(1980)3C LR 497, 10 Anihadesv CYTA(1981J3CLR21, Georghiadesν Republic
(1981)3CLR431, Zambakides ν Republic
(1982)3 C LR 1017, Goulielmos ν Republic
(1983)3 CLR 883, Styhanides ν Republic
(1983)3 C LR 672, 15 loannou andOthersν Republic
(1983)3CLR 150, HadjiConstantinouandOthers ν Republic
(1984)3CLR 319, vlahou andOthersν Republic
(1984)3C LR 1319, Michaehdesν Republic
(1984)3CLR 1419, MavrommatisandOthersν Republic
(1984)3 C LR 1006, 20 Mavrogenisν Republic
(1984)3CLR 1140, Kalosν Republic
(1985)3CLR 135, Rafts Co ν MunicipalityofPaphos
(1985)3CLR 1664, NakisBonded Warehouseν Republic
(1985)3C L R 1179, Vrahimisν Republic
(1985)3CLR 2057, 25 Piendes ν Republic
(1985)3CLR 1275, ChrysanthouandOthersν Republic
(1986)3CLR 1128, ProvitoLtd ν GrainCommission of Cyprus
(1986)3CLR 737, Papadopoulos v.Republic
(1986)3CLR 1073, 1687 Papadopoullou &Anotherv. C.B.C.
(1987)Republic v.Makaronopeion Carkotis
(1987)3C.L.R.72; Xinan v. TheRepublic,3 R.S.C.C.98; Appeal and Cross-appeal. Appeal and Cross-appeal against thejudgment ofthe President of the Supreme Court of Cyprus (Triantafyllides, P.) given on the 5 15th January, 1986 (Revisional Jurisdiction Case No 137/83)* whereby appellants' recourse against the decision of the respondents to appoint them to the post of Announcers/ NewsreaderswithSalaryScaleA8/9andnotA.10wasdismissed. K. Talarides, for theappellants. 10 P.Polyviou, for the respondents. Cur.adv. vult. A.LOIZOU J.: The judgment of the Court willbe delivered by Mr.Justice Stylianides. STYLIANIDES J.: The appellants are Announcers/ Newsreaders (radio and television) in the employment of the respondent Corporation. 15 Before 1/2/83their post was Announcer/Newsreader of radio only and their salary scale wasA6.Prior to that date negotiations werecarried outbetween theCorporation andtheStaff Union for 20 the reorganization, salary revision, etc., of the staff of the respondentCorporation.Theappellantsmaderepresentations for their elevation in the service, both with regard to their post and their salary. Ultimately the Board of Management of the Corporation on 25 21/12/82 adopted and approved the reorganization agreement and proceeded totheissue ofnewschemes of service. The postsof Announcer/Newsreader radioand television were increased from two to four. The new salary scale for these posts was fixed A 8/9, but the two employees of the Corporation 30 holdingthetwoposts-onesince 1971and theothersince 1978were given personal scaleA10, inviewof the length of their past service inthesame post. 'Reportedin
(1986)3C.LR.
- 1688 3 C.L.R. Papadopoullou &Anotherv.C.B.C. StylUnlde· J. On 13/1/83 the appellants were appointed to the permanent post of Announcer/Newsreader radio and television with effect from 1/2/83 in the salary scale of A 8/
- They were given a number of increments and the salary of Papadopoullou was 5 £3,336.-and asfrom 1/7/83£3,382.-,and appellant Fereou was placed on£3, 271.-. By letter dated 21/2/83 offers of appointment with detailed terms of service, including date of commencement and salary, were given inwritingtothem. (See Appendices Fand G.) 10 Appellants by letters dated 16/3/83 and 17/3/83 respectively accepted the offers on the termssetout inthesaid offers. Byletter dated 8/4/83they asked for theirappointments to be made retrospective, at the latest as from the 31st December, 1981and foremplacement on scaleA10,inorder tobe accorded 15 equal treatment with their male counterparts, who had been emplaced on scale A
- That letter was not favoured with any reply. The appellants feeling aggrieved filed the recourse whereby they seek the annulment of the decision of the respondents to 20 emplace them in the salary scale A8/9 instead of scale A10 and the refusal of therespondents toappoint them retrospectively. The learned PresidentofthisCourttriedtherecourseandbyan interim decision he dismissed thefirstprayer, astheappellants by their unreserved and free acceptance of the aforesaid 25 appointments have been deprived of legitimate interest in the sense of Article 146.2 of the Constitution entitling them to file a recourse against the sub judice decision of the respondents to appoint them insalaryscaleA8/
- Asregards the applicants' complaint that on the ground of sex 30 and or other discrimination in violation of Article 28 of tlie Constitution they have not been accorded subsequently to the appointment equal treatment with their male counterparts, he, prima facie, held that the applicants had not been deprived of a legitimateinterest inthesenseofArticle 146.2 ofthe Constitution 35 and heard theircomplaint onthe merits. In a final judgment the learned President dismissed this complaint as well, as the applicants failed to establish at all that theywerevictimsofdiscriminatingtreatmentcontrarytoArticle28 of the Constitution on theground oftheirfemale sex,asthemale 40 counterparts of the applicants were emplaced on the salaryscale 1689 Stylianlde· J. Papadopoullou &Anotherv.C.B.C.
(1987)A10, because they were holding post of Announcers/ Newsreaders for longer period in the past and there was a reasonabledifferentiation asbetweentheappellantsandthetwo otheremployees. Againstthisjudgmenttheappellantstookthisappeal. 5 Therespondentscrossappealedagainstthepartoftheinterim judgment,wherebytheappellantswereheldtohave,evenprima facie, legitimate interest to proceed with their case on alleged discrimination. TheCourt,indealingwithanappealofthisnature,hastodecide 10 whether ornotthere oughttosucceed therecourse inwhichthe judgment appealed from was given; because it is a recourse which,thoughmadetotheCourtasawholeunderArticle146of theConstitution, was,inviewof theprovisionsofs. 11{2)ofthe Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law, 1964 15 (Law 33/64), determined, at first instance, by only one of the Judges of the Court (see,interalia, 77ieRepublic v. Vassiliades
(1967)3 C.L.R. 82;Pikis v.TheRepublic
(1968)3C.L.R. 303; Republic v. Lefkos Georghiades
(1972)3 C.L.R. 594; 77ie PresidentoftheRepublicv.YiannakisLoucaandAnother
(1984)20 3 C.L.R.241). As provided by Article 146.2 of the Constitution a person making a recourse must be one whose any «existing legitimate interest»is«adverselyanddirectlyaffected» bythedecision,actor omissionwhichischallengedbytherecourse. 25 Mr.Talarides in hisvery able address referred to the French Jurisprudence andsomecasesoftheGreekCouncilofStateand the principle enunciated by our case-law that the free and voluntaryacceptanceofanactordecisiondeprivesapersonofthe legitimateinteresttochallengethesaidactordecisionbeforethe 30 Administrative CourtandinvitedtheCourt,eithertodepart from it,ortodifferentiate it,ortolimitittocaseswhereonly financial interestisinvolved. Formorethan20yearsthisCourtrepeatedlyheldthatvoluntary and unreserved acceptance.of an administrative act or decision 35 deprives the person concerned of a legitimate interest entitling himtofilearecourseforanannulmentunderArticle146.2ofthe Constitution. The acceptance may be expressed or implied. It mustbe free and voluntary, which itisnotifithasbeen brought 1690 3 C.L.R. Papadopoullou &Anotherv.C.B.C. Styllanldes J. about by pressure of the prejudicial consequences of nonacceptance. (SeePaschaliv.Republic
(1966)3 C.L.R. 593,atpp. 603-604; Piperis v. Republic
(1967)3 C.L.R. 295; Stephanos loannou and Others v. Republic
(1968)3 C.L.R. 146 at p. 153; 5 Antoniou v. Republic
(1968)3 C.L.R. 452; loannou v. Grain Commission
(1968)3 CL.R. 612, at p. 617; Markou v. Republic
(1968)3 C.L.R. 267; Pericleous v. Republic
(1971)3 C.L.R. 141,atp. 145;Mynanthisv. Republic
(1977)3 C.L.R. 165; HadjiConstantinou and Others v. Republic
(1980)3 C.L.R. 184; 10 Tomboli v. CYTA
(1980)3 C.L.R. 266 and on Appeal
(1982)3 C.L.R. 149; Neocleous and Others v. Republic
(1980)3 C.L.R. 497, at p. 508; Stavros Aniliades v. CYTA
(1981)3 C.L.R. 21; Lefkos Georghiadesv.Republic
(1981)3C.L.R. 431; Zambakides v.Republic
(1982)3C.L.R. 1017;Goulielmos v.Republic
(1983)15 3 C.L.R. 883; Stylianides v. Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 672; loannou and Others v. Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 150; HadjiConstantinou and Others v. Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 319, F.B. case, at p. 328; Vlahou and Others v. Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1319, at p. 1322; G. Michaelides v. Republic
(1984)3 20 C.L.R. 1419, at pp. 1423-1424; Mavrommatis and Others v. Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1140, at pp. 1148-1149; Kalos v. Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 135, at pp. 142-143; Raftis Co. v. Municipality of Paphos
(1985)3 C.L.R. 1664; Nakis Bonded Warehouse v. Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 1179; Vrahimis v. 25 Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 2057; Pierides v. Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 1275. at pp. 1282-1283; Chrysanthou and Others v. Republic
(1986)3C.L.R. 1128,F.B.case,atp. 1136;ProvitaLtd., v. GrainCommission of Cyprus
(1986)3 C.L.R. 737; Theodoros Papadopoulos v. Republic
(1986)3 C.L.R. 1073, at p. 1083; 30 Republicv.Makaronopeion Carkotis
(1987)3 C.L.R. 72.) Thisprinciple isof universal application. Itiswellembedded in ouradministrative law.Wesee no reason todepart from it. Havingconsideredthecontentoftheoffersofappointment and the written acceptance by the appellants, and in the light of all 35 relevant circumstances of thiscase, we are in full agreement with thetrialJudge,thattheacceptance oftheaforesaid appointments was unreserved and free, and, therefore, bysuch acceptance the appellantshavebeendeprivedoflegitimateinterestinthesenseof Article 146.2 of the Constitution, entitling them to file their 40 recourse against the sub judice decision to appoint them with salaryscaleA8/9. Article28safeguards, interalia, the principleof equality before the law and the administration and the notion of «equal pay for 1691 StyllanldesJ. Papadopoullou &Anotherv.C.B.C.
(1987)equal work»in relation topublicofficers isanintegral part ofsuch principle(Jenny Xinariv.TheRepublic, 3R.S.C.C. 98,atp. 100). The outmoded belief thata man, because of hisrole insociety, shouldbepaidmorethanawoman,eventhoughhisdutiesarethe same, is contrary to modem thought and inconsistent and contrarytoour Constitution. 5 Differential based on seniority on the totality of the circumstances of a case is permissible and does not infringe the principle of equality. With regard to the allegation for discrimination contrary to 10 Article 28 of the Constitution we find, as the trialJudge did, that there was no differentiation due tosex.Thedifferentiation by the emplacement of the two other employees, who by coincidence happened tobemale,wasreasonablyjustifiable.Thedistinctionin the salary scale of the two -Koukkides and Meletiou -who were 15 the holders of the post of Newsreader radioand television since 1971and 1978 respectively, manyyearsbefore the appellants, is objective and reasonable. In view of the final outcome of the recourse, we need not embark on the issue raised by the cross appeal, whether the 20 appellants were divested of their legitimate interest to pursue the claimfortherelief,on the ground ofinfringement ofthe principle of equality bytheacceptance oftheact, ordecision and we leave itopen asitisunnecessary forthe determination ofthisappeal. Fortheforegoingtheappealandcrossappealaredismissedand 25 the sub judice decisions are confirmed under Article 146.4(a) of the Constitution. Letthere be no order astocosts. Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.No order asto costs. 1692 30