(1987)1987May2 [STYLIANIDES.J.) INTHE MATTER O F ARTICLE 146O F THE CONSTTTUTJON SOTERIS ANASTASSIADES AND ANOTHER, Applicants, v. ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY OF CYPRUS, Respondents. (Cases Nos. 173/85 and 174/85). Constitutional Law — Public Services — Constitution, Articles 122-125 — Competency of the Public Service Commission — Does not include competency tomakeprovisionsorregulationsrelatingtoretirementbenefits— ThePublicCorporations{Regulation ofPersonnelMatters)Law 61/70—As retirementbenefitsof«publicofficers»inthesenseofArticle122wereoutside the competency of the Public Service Commission, the issue of constitutionalityofthesaidlawdoes notariseinthiscase,wherethematterin issue concerns the retirement benefits of employees of the*,respondent Authority. ConstitutionalLaw—Law ofNecessity— ThePublicCorporations(Regulationof Personnel Matters)Law 61/70 — Conferment of power entrusted by Art. 125.1 of the Constitution to the Public Service Commission on the respondent Authority—Justified byLawof Necessity. 10 ConstitutionalLaw — Equality—Constitution, Art.28 — Discrimination-** 77ie elements, whichiffound toexist, establishdiscrimination—Pensionscheme 1 5 differentiatingbetween employees, whohadretiredbeforeacertaindate,and thoseretiringthereafter—-inmecircumstancesthedistinctionwasreasonable — Differences between retirement benefits of civilservants and retirement benefits ofemployees of the respondent Authority—Such 'differences*do not constitute different treatment, but assuming they constitute such a 2 0 treatment, toe distinctionisreasonable—Sameprinciplesapply asregards differences between retirement benefits of the employees of one public corporationandthe benefits ofthoseofanother. Pensions— ThePensionsLaw, Cap.311, asamended byLaw2/81 —Section 17 —Applicable only toCivilServants—Notapplicabletoemployees ofPublic Corporations. 790 25 3C.LR. Anaatasiadea v. E.A.C. The applicant in case 173/85 is the retired Chief Engineer andGeneral ManagerandtheapplicantinCase 174/85theretired FinancialControllerof therespondentAuthonty Theyretiredon30 1180and28 2 81 respectively 5 10 15 After the retirement of the applicants and the expiration of a Collective Agreement on 31 12 81,negotiations between theAuthonty and theTrade Union of itsemployees resulted managreementfor anew pensionscheme, which would cover the employees of the respondent,who have notretired before 1 1 82 On 17 12 83 the applicants requested the nghtto electtobe membeiaoi suchnewPensionScheme Astheirrequestwasturneddown,theyfiledthese recourses Thegroundsonwhichthese recoursesarebased are (a) The applicants are «public officers» in the sense of Art 122 of the Constitution and, therefore, m virtue of Art 125, the Public Service Commission was the only organ vested with competence to deal with applicants' pension rights The applicantsare entitled tothesame pension nghts astheother«public officers· (b)Even if Law 61/70 confers competenceon the respondentAuthority, this Law is notvalid, as the requirements of the Law of Necessity are not satisfied 20 (c) Discnminatorytreatmentinviolation of Art 28 1of the Constitution Theapplicantinrecourse 174/85seeks, also,theannulmentofthe refusal torecognise as pensionable thepenodof hisservicewith theBnbsh Array as providedbyThePensions(Amendment)Law 2/81 25 30 35 It must be noted that the relevant part of this Law, namely the new paragraph2ofsection17ofthePensionsLaw,Cap 311,was adoptedbythe Cyprus Telecommunications Authonty (CYΤA) in respect of its own employees by incorporating it in Reg 5
(2){b) of Regulations 124/83 The RespondentAuthonty,however, didnotadoptthesaid provision Held, dismissingthe recourse-
(1)The competenceof the Public Service Commission envisaged by the Constitution was restricted (
- i)to make the allocation of public offices between the two Communities,and (
- u)appoint, confirm, emplaceonthepermanentorpensionableestablishment,promote, transfer, retire and exercise disciplinary controlover, includingdismissal or removal from office, of public officers
(2)The applicants are public officers in the sense of Art 122 of the Constitution, but they were always members of the personnel of the respondentAuthorityandnotGovernmentCivil Servants
(3)ByLaw 61/70 thepower entrustedby Article 125 1of theConstitution tothePublicService Comrrtistionasregardsthepcmmnelofth· respondent 791 Anastaslades v. E.A.C.
(1987)Authoritywasconferred on thelatter.
(4)The Public Service Commission envisaged bytheConstitution had no competence to make anyprovisionsorregulations for retirementbenefits.It followsthatinthiscasetheconstitutionality of Law 16/70doesnotarise.
(5)In any event, itmay be saidthat Law 61/70, though repugnant tothe Constitution, itisjustified andsavedbythe lawof necessity. 5
(6)Article 28 of the Constitution does not forbid every difference in treatment. The principle of equality is violated, if the distinction has no objective and reasonable justification. Discnmination under Art. 28 is established, where the following elements are found toexist,namely, (a)the 1 0 facts found disclose different treatment, (b)the distinction does not have a legitimate aim,and (c)there isnoreasonable proportion between the means employed and theaimsoughttobe related.
(7)In these cases the facts are clear. Employees of the respondent Authority, who retired before 1.1.82, such as the applicants, received 1 5 different treatment. The relevant collective agreement was reached after applicants failed to discharge the burden cast on them of showing that the differentiation between employees whohad retired before 1.1.82and those retiredthereafter isessentiallyarbitrary.
(8)The Pensions Law, Cap. 311 and its amendment {Law 2/81) are 2 0 applicable only to State servants and not to personnel of the respondent Authority. «Public service» under s.2
(1)of Cap.311 means serviceinacivil capacity under the Government. The non adoption by the respondent AuthorityoftheprovisionsofLaw2/81,whichwasadoptedbyanotherpublic corporation, CY.T.A., does not constitute a different treatment, merely 2 5 because the respondent Authority has not extended the relevant benefit to anymember of itsemployees.
(9)Assuming that there is a differential treatment, the position between State Civil Servants and an employee of E.A.C.isreasonably different and, therefore,thedifferentiation reasonable.Furthermore,thedifferent treatment 3 0 by different public corporations of their employees cannot be held unreasonableorunjustifiable. Itcannotbevalidlysaidthatanybenefit granted by one corporation to itsemployees automatically should be granted to the employeesofanother corporation. Recoursesdismissed. 3 5 Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Rossidesv.TheRepublic, 3R.S.C.C.95; Rodhl v. 77ieRepublic, 2R.S.C.C.84; 792 3 C.L.R. Anastasiades v. E.A.C. Alkidasv The Republic
(1967)3 C LR 191, Georghtou ν CBC
(1985)3C L R 2007, HjiGeorghiou ν CyprusTounsm Organization
(1986)3C L R 1110, 5 PavlidesandOthers ν Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation
(1986)3 C L R 1332, Cyprus Tounsm Organisation ν HadjiDemetnou
(1987)3C L R 780, Kontememotis ν CBC
(1982)3C L R 1027, Mavrommatis and Others ν TheLand Consolidation Authonty
(1984)3 CLR 1006, 10 PaphihsandOthersν TheRepLblic,
(1983)3 C L R 255, Mikrommabs ν The Republic, 2R SC C 125, 777eRepublic ν ArakianandOthers
(1972)3C L R 294, Papaxenophontos andOthersν The Republic
(1982)3 C L R 1037, ApostohdesandOthersν The Republic
(1984)3C L R 233, 15 Levy ν Louisiana, 391U S 68,20 L ed 2d 436 Recourses. Recourses against the refusal of the respondents to emplace applicantsinthenewpensionscheme. 20 A S. Angehdes with M. Spanou-Anastassiou(Mrs), for the applicants. E. Liatsou (Mrs.) forG.Cacoyannis,forthe respondents. Cur.adv. vult STYLIANIDESJ. read thefollowingjudgment. Theapplicantsin these cases are the retired Chief EngineerandGeneralManager 25 and the Financial Controller of the respondent Authority. They retired on30.11.80and28.2.81, respectively. Bythese recourses theyseek theannulmentof thedecisionof therespondentswhereby thelatterrejected theirclaimcontained inaletteroftheircounseldated 17.12.83for emplacementinthe 30 new pension scheme which is identical to that obtaining for Governmentpublicservants. TheapplicantinRecourseNo.174/ 85 seeks also the annulmentof the decision of the respondents whereby they refused tocomputeinhisyears ofservicewith the 793 StylJanldes J. Anastasiadesv.E.A.C.
(1987)Authority the period he served in the British Army, as provided by The Pensions (Amendment) Law No. 2/81, and further that such omission is arbitrary and constitutes an abuse andexcessofpower andwhathasbeen omittedshould have been performed. The applicant in Case No. 173/85 joined the service of the Authority on 1.11.50 and he served continuously without interruption until his retirement as Chief Engineer and General Manager on 3011.
- The applicant in Case No. 174/85 was appointed by the Authority on 1.1.56 and retired as Financial 10 Controller on 28.2.
- Before 1.1.78the Authority was keeping a Provident Fund for its employees. By virtue of aCollective Agreement with thetrade union, of which the present applicants were notmembers, being the top officials of the Authority, a Pension Scheme was 15 introduced with effect from 1.1.78,similar tothe one applying to the personnel of CY.T.A. As no Regulations were made, an Interim Trust Deedwas formed pending theissuingof the relative Regulations so as to enable the payment of the benefits to the employees who would retire after 1.1.
- The employees who 20 would retire after 1.1.78were entitled toopt either theProvident Fund or the new Pension Scheme. On 29.11.80 a table showing the entitlement of applicant in Case No. 173/85 under the Provident Fund and the Pension Scheme as well as the various provisions of the Pension Scheme 25 already approved by theAuthority was sent tohim. On the same day by letter, exhibit No. 2, he elected to avail himself of the benefits of thePensionScheme andchose the type of reduced pension. On 18.4.81 the applicant in Case No. 174/85 was asked to make his own election and healso elected reduced pension with gratuity -(See exhibit No. 2 dated 21.4-81). 30 The Regulations for thesaid PensionSchemewere made later by the Authority unders. 44 of the Electricity Development Law, Cap. 171,as amended, approved by theCouncilof Ministersand 35 published intheOfficial Gazetteon6.4.85underΚ.Δ.Π 111/85{See Official Gazette
(1985), Supplement Hlfl),page 347). Afterthe retirementof these two applicants and the expiration 794 3C.L.R. ' AnastasUdes v.E.A.C. SiyiUnides J . of aCollective Agreement, on31.12.81 negotiationsbetween the trade union Ε.Π.Ο.Π.Α.Η. and the Authority reached an agreement for putting into effect a new Pension Scheme which would cover theemployees of theAuthority who have notretired 5 befpre 1.1.82.Thenegotiationswerefor ihetermsandconditions of service, including pension of the employees who were in the service on1.1.82.Thisnew PensionSchemeisnota contributory one and any amount paid by an employee covered by this new scheme would be refunded to him with compound interest. An 10 identical scheme was agreed upon and put intoeffect by CY.T.A. It is similar to the one applicable under the Pensions Law, Cap. 311, toGovernment servants. In virtue of the Pensions (Amendment) Law, 1981 (No.2 of 1981), which amended section 17 of the Pensions Law for State, 15 Cap.311,the following two paragraphs were added:- 20 25 30 35 «
(2)Ανεξαρτήτως τ ω ν διατάξεων τ ο υ παρόντος Νόμου, εις περίπτωσιν κ α θ ' ήν υπάλληλος, ο οποίος διορισθείς εις την δημοσίαν υπηρεσίανκατά ή μετά την 3ην Σεπτεμβρίου, 1939, κατετάγη εις τ α ς Ενόπλους Δυνάμεις της Μεγάλης Βρεττανίας ή τ ο Κυπριακόν Σύνταγμα ή την Κυπριακήν Εθελοντικήν Δΰναμιν μεταξύ της 3ης Σεπτεμβρίου, 1939. και της 15ης Αυγούστου, 1945, αμφοτέρων των ημερομηνιών περιλαμβανομένων, και υπηρέτησεν εις αυτάς κ α θ ' οιονδήποτε χρόνον εις τον Δεύτερον Παγκόσμιον Πόλεμον, η τ ο ι α ύ τ η στρατιωτική υπηρεσία α υ τ ο ύ λογίζεται ως συντάξιμοςυπηρεσία: Νοείται ό τ ιεάνο υπάλληλος απεστρατεύθη μετά την 15ην Αυγούστου, 1947και διωρίσθη ειςτην δημοσίαν υπηρεσίανμετά την 1ην Σεπτεμβρίου, 1948,η περίοδος της στρατιωτικής υπηρεσίας α υ τ ο ύ πέραν της 15ης Αυγούστου, 1947 δεν λογίζεται ως συντάξιμος υπηρεσία, δεν θεωρείται όμως διακοπήτ η ς συνεχείας της υπηρεσίας τ ο υ .
(3)Ειςπερίπτωσιν κ α θ 'ην δημόσιος υπάλληλος, εις τ ο ν οποίον εφαρμόζεται τ ο εδάφιον
(2), αφυπηρέτησε προ της ημερομηνίας ενάρξεως της ισχύος τ ο υ περί Συντάξεων (Τροποποιητικού) Νόμου τ ο υ 1981, η εις αυτόν καταβαλλομένη ετησία σύνταξις 795 Styllanldes J. Anastasiades v. E.A.C.
(1987)αναπροσαρμόζεται, α π οτης ω ς είρηταιημερομηνίας, εφαρμοζομένων των διατάξεων του ρηθέντος εδαφίου
(2)». («
(2)Notwithstanding the provisions of this Law, in case where an employee, who was appointed inthepublic service 5 on or after the 3rd September, 1939, enlisted in the armed forces of GreatBritain orthe Cyprus Regiment orthe Cyprus Volunteer Force between the 3rd September, 1939, and the 15th of August, 1945 both datesinclusive, andserved therein at any time in the Second World War, such military service is 10 deemed as pensionable service Provided that if the employee was released from such service after the 15th August, 1947, and was appointedinthe public service before the 1st September, 1948, the penod of military service after the 15th of August 1947 shall not be 15 deemed as pensionable service, butshall notbe considered as an interruption of the continuity of his service
(3)Incase where an employee to whom sub-section
(2)is applicable, retired before the coming into operation of the Pensions (Amendment) Law 1981, the annual pension payable to him shall be, as from such date, readjusted by applying the provisions of the aforesaid sub-section
(2)»). 20 The provisions of the new paragraph 2 of s 17 of the Pensions Law were adopted by CY ΤA for its own employees and were incorporated in Regulation No 5
(2)(
- b)of the Pensions Regulations for the Employees of CY.T A -{See official Gazette, 1983, Supplement No III,page 335, Notification No 124/83) 25 The applicant in Application No 174/85 served for apenodin the BntashArmy dunng the Second World War Counsel for the applicants on 1712 83 requested that 30 applicants be given the nght to elect to be members of the new Pension Scheme, which is similar to the Government one, and recognition as pensionable service of the service of the applicant in Case No. 174/85 inthe Bnbsh Army dunngtheSecond World War, as provided in the Pensions (Amendment) Law No 2/81. 35 This request was rejected by the Authonty - (See letter dated 27 2 84, appendix «B»). Hencethis recourse 796 3 C.L.R. Anastasiades v. E.A.C. Styfianides J. The grounds on which this recourse is founded, as emerging from the addresses of their counsel,are:- 5 10 15 20 1. The applicants are public officers in the sense of Article 122 of the Constitution and, therefore, the respondent Authority was not the appropriate organ to determine their pension rights as by Article 125 exclusive competence was entrusted to the Public Service Commission. Trie applicants are entitled to the same pension benefits as the other «public officers»; 2. Even if Law No. 61/70 conferred competence on the respondent Authority,thisLawisnotvalidasitdoesnot satisfy the requirements of the lawof necessity; 3. The treatment of the applicants both with regard to the pension rights and the recognition as pensionable of the periodofserviceuntil 15.8.45ofoneofthemisdiscriminatory and violates Article 28.1 of the Constitution. The discrimination is the different treatment between the applicants and the employees of the Authority who did not retirebefore 1.1.82and between theapplicant Demetriou on the one hand and the civil servants and the employees of CY.T.A.on the other. The Constitution in Articles 122-125 made general provision about the public service for the incorporation in the Constitution of the provisions of Article 11 of the Zurich Agreement which 25 provided that the civil service shall be composed as to 70% of Greeks and as to 30% of Turks. It is understood that this quantitative distribution shall be applied asfar aspracticable inall gradesof the civilservice. Article 122isadefinition article Theexpression«Publicservice» 30 wasgiven averywide meaning. Article 123reproducesArticle 11of theZurich Agreement. Article 124providesfortheestablishment and composition ofa Public Service Commission and Article 125 provides for the competence of such Commission. 35 The competence of such Commission is subject to two qualifications: (a)Wherenootherexpressprovision ismade inthe Constitution and (
- b)subject to the provisions of any Law. The competence of that Public Service Commission was restricted to 797 Stylianides J. Anastaslades v. E.A.C.
(1987)(
- i)make the allocation of public officers between the two Communites and (
- ii)to appoint, confirm, emplace on the permanent orpensionableestablishment,promote,transfer, retire and exercise disciplinary control over, including dismissal or removal from office of, public officers. 5 This chapter of the Constitution provided for the allocation of the seats between the twocommunities and the establishment of a body independent of otherpowersand authorities inthe State. In Rossides v. The Republic, 3 R.S.C.C. 95, the applicant, an employee of theElectricityAuthority,contended thatbecause the 10 employees of the Authority are covered by the definitions of «public officer» and «public service» in Article 122 of the Constitution and because,therefore, theprovisionsofArticle 125 ofthe Constitution applytosuch employees,theapplicant, being such an employee, became a permanent officer in the public 15 servicesincethecomingintooperation oftheConstitution andhis services could no longerbeterminated bythe givingof a month's notice under hiscontract of employment. The Supreme Constitutional Court said:«The Court considers the there is no substance in the 20 contention of the applicant. It was not, and could not have been,theintention oftheConstitution togivetoemployeesof the Authority, who under Article 125 came under the competence of the Public Service Commission for certain purposes, greater security of tenure than that possessed by 25 them before the Constitution came into operation». InMehmedAliRouhi v.TheRepublic, 2R.S.C.C.84,itwassaid at p.87:«Paragraph 1 of Article 125 of the Constitution is a provision defining the competence of the Public Service 30 Commission. The taking of a decision is an essential ingredient of the notion of competence. Aprovision of alaw not requiring the taking of a decision does not involve the exercise of competence. Itfollows, therefore, that provisions such as those contained in the Pensions Law, Cap. 311, 35 making retirement automatic byoperation oflawon reaching a specified age limitarenotinconsistentwiththe competence ofthePublicServiceCommission todealwithmattersrelating toretirementandrequiringthetakingofaspecificdecision.In 798 3 C.L.R. 5 Anastasiades v. E.A.C. Styllanides J the circumstances thesaid provisions of Cap 311 continue in force, without any modification in this respect under Article 188 of the Constitution,and they, therefore, come within the expression subject totheprovisions of any law in paragraph 1of Articled25» In CostasAlkidas ν The Republic,
(1967)3 C L R 191, the applicant, an employee of CY ΤA , was an officer whose retirement was governed, because of the history of his employment by special provisions namely those of the Eastern 10 Pension Fund The fact that he had come in relation to his retirement,underthecompetenceof theCommission by virtueof Article 122 and 125 of the Constitution, did not entail also the alteration of theprovisions regarding his tenureof office Once the applicant's retirement continued to be governed by the 15 provisions of thesaid Fund,his position was different from thatof otheremployees of CY ΤA who were notmembersof thatFund In Ceorghtou ν CBC
(1985)3 C LR 2007, itwas held that as isstated inArticle 122 of theConstitution, thedefinitions inthat Article are for the purposes of Articles 122-125, that is to say, in 20 relation to the competence of the Public Service Commission It would be wrong to generalize and apply these definitions to all instances and in particular to questions of Densions and provident fund schemes The claim of the applicant - an employee of the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation - that the 25 provisions of Law No 2/81 relating totheservice intheArmy, was rejected as the Pensions Law, Cap 311, makes provision for pensions, gratuities and other allowances only to officers who have been in the service underthe Governmentof Cyprus which does notcertainly include service with C B C 30 This was ajudgment of one of theJudges of thisCourt Appeal was taken against thisjudgment before theFullBench but having regard totheobservations madeby theJudges inthecourse ofthe heanng the applicant-appellant withdrew his appeal which was consequently dismissed 35 Theapplicantsare public officers inthesense of Article 122 but they were always members of the personnel of the respondent Authonty andnotGovernmentcivil servantsjMJe State servants That PublicService Commission ceased toexistandfunction A new Public Service Commission was established by the Public 40 Service Law, 1967 (No 33 of 1967) with limited powers for the 799 Stylianides J. Anastaslades v. E.A.C.
(1987)civilservantswhoworkedundertheGovernmentoftheRepublic. The respondent Authority under the Electricity Development Law, Cap. 171, was empowered to establish schemes for the payment of superannuation allowances and gratuities to the members, officers and servants of the Authority upon such terms and conditions asmaybespecified inthe Regulations. (See, inter alia, Section 44 both before and after itsrepeal and replacement by s. 2 of the Electricity Development (Amendment No. 2) Law, 1960 (No. 16of I960)). The Public Service Commission envisaged by the Constitution had only competence to allocate the seats in the proportion of 70-30 to the two communities and appoint... promote, transfer, retire and exercise disciplinary controlover, includingdismissalor removal from office of, public officers including members of the personnel of the respondent Authority, but not to make any provision or regulations forthe retirement benefits. Bythe Public Corporations (Regulation of Personnel Matters) Law, 1970 (No. 61 of 1970) the power entrusted by Article 125.1 of the Constitution to the Public Service Commission was conferred on the Authority. The Pensions Law, Cap.311,does notapplytothe applicants. This Law does not create any rights for them as its scope and application is limited to the «public service» as defined in s. 2
(1)thereof, i.e. those serving under the Government of Cyprus ina civil capacity. InviewoftheabovetheconstitutionalityofLawNo.61/70 does not arise. It may, however, be said that though repugnant to the Constitution, itisjustified andsaved bythe lawof necessity -(See Krinos Hji-Georghiou v. The Cyprus Tourism Organisation,
(1986)3 C.L.R. 1110; Pavlides and Others v. Cyprus 30 Broadcasting Corporation,
(1986)3 C.L.R. 1332; The Cyprus Tourism Organisation v.AgniHadjiDemetriou, Revisional Appeal No.665,not yet reported)*. Collective Agreements arenot a source of rightsinthe domain of public law— (Kontemeniotis v. CB.C,
(1982)3 C.L.R. 1027; 35 Mavrommatis & Others v. The Land Consolidation Authority,
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1006;Paphitis&Others v. The Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 255). Theprincipleofequality,whichisenshrinedandsafeguarded in •Repon^im(l9X7)3C.LR 78U 800 10 15 20 3 C.L.R. 5 Anastas!ad«s v. E.A.C. Styllanldes J. Art;r!e 28.1 of theConstitution,hasbeenjudicially considered by thisCourtina numberof cases — (See, interalia,Mikrommatis v. TheRepublic, 2 R.S.C.C. 125; 77ieRepublic of Cyprus v.Nishan Arakian and Others,
(1972)3 C.L.R.294; Papaxenophontos and Others v. The Republic.
(1982)3 C.L.R. 1037; Apostolides and Othersv.TheRepublic,
(1984)3 C.L.R.233). Amcle 28.1 of theConstitutionreads as follows:- 10 15 «All persons are equal before the Law, theadministration and justice and are entitled to equal protection thereof and treatmentthereby». Article 28.does not forbid every difference in treatment.The principleofequalityoftreatmentisviolated ifthedistinctionhasno objective and reasonable justification. The existence of such a justification mustbeassessed inrelationtotheaimandeffect of the measures under consideration regard being had to the principle which normallyprevails indemocraticsocieties. InLevy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S.68,20 L.ed. 2d. 436. Mr.Justice Douglas pointedoutonp. 439:- υ «In applying the Equal Protection Clause to social and economiclegislation, we give great latitude tothe legislature in making classifications». Discrimination under Article 28 is established where the following elements are found to exist in the case concerned, namely, (a)the facts found disclose a different treatment; (b)the 25 distinctiondoes nothave a legitimate aim,i.e.ithas no objective and reasonable justification having regard totheaimandeffect of the measure under consideration; and (c)there is no reasonable proportionalitybetween themeansemployed andtheaim sought to be related. 30 InTheRepublic v. NishanArakian&others, theFullBenchsaid that the status of a serving public officer and thatof a pensioner public officer are obviously essentially different both factually and legally; they may be similar oranalogous toeach other incertain respects butthedifferences outweigh definitely any similarities or 35 analogies. The refusal of the Minister of Finance to pay to the respondents,who were pensionerspublic officers, a costof living allowance tied to the cost of living index in the same manner as such allowance was being paid to serving public officers, was found tohave reasonable basis and nottobe essentially arbitrary 801 Stylianldes J . Anastaslades v.E.A.C.
(1987)and not contrary or inconsistent with Article 28.1 of the Constitution. In the present case the facts are clear. Employees of the respondent Authority, who retired before 1.1.82, such as the presentapplicants,receiveddifferent treatment.Theagreementto 5 introduce thisnewpension schemewasreached on23.12.82 and it was formed into Regulations, published in the Gazette, on 6.4.85—(ElectricityofCyprusSchemeforPensionsand Benefits to the Employees of the ElectricityAuthority of Cyprus and their Dependants (Similar to the Government Pension Scheme) 10 Regulations, 1985). The applicants were already retired members of the personnel of the Authority, having retired on 30.11.80 and 28.2.81, respectively. The burden of showing that this classification does notrestupon a reasonable basisbutitisessentially arbitraryrests 15 ontheapplicants.Theyfailed todischargethisburden.Theaimof the new Pension Scheme was toimprove the pension benefitsof those whohave not retiredbefore the expiration ofthe Collective Agreement on 31.12.81,i.e.themembersofthepersonnelof the Authority who had not retired before 1.1.82. 20 There isa different treatment with regard toretirement benefits between the applicants and thosewho were intheactual service on 1.1.82 as the new Pension Scheme agreed upon and finally incorporated into the 1985 Regulations makes better provision. This differentiation, however, is neither unreasonable nor unjustifiable as the applicants were already retired and the classification wasa reasonable one and not essentially arbitrary. 25 With regard to the Army service during World War II, the Pensions Law, Cap. 311,and itsamendment by Law No.2/81, whereby Section 17 was amended, is applicable only to civil 30 servants, State servants and not to personnel of the respondent Authority.«Publicservice»unders.2
(1)ofCap.311meansservice in a civil capacity under the Government. The applicant Demetriou isnot included inthat definition asitdoesnotapplyto the employees of the respondents who had their own Provident 35 Fund and retirement schemes. The non-adoption by the respondent Authority of the provisions of Law No. 2/81, which wasadoptedandappliedbyanotherpubliccorporation,CY.T.A., does not constitute a different treatment as the respondent 802 3 C.L.R. Anastasiades v. E.A.C. Stylianiries ,1. Authority has not extended this benefit to any member of its personnel. Assuming that there is a differential treatment, the position between a state civil servant and an employee of E.A.C is 5 reasonably different and the differentiation is justifiable. The diffei 2r.i treatment by different corporations of their employees cannot beheld tobe unreasonable orunjustifiable The case was regulated by a Collective Agreement between CYT A. and the trade union of its employees. Though there appear to be 10 similarities and analogies between the employees ofCY.TA and E.A.C, nevertheless, a different treatment extended by any of these corporations to its employees cannot be held to be unreasonable or unjustifiable. They are different bodies with different lines of work, different budgets, different financial and 15 other commitments and implications, different managements and it cannot be validly said that any benefit granted by one corporation to itsemployees, automatically should be granted to theemployees ofanother corporation. Inthiscountry there areso many public corporations that it would not be possible to find 20 otherwise. The respondent Authority by refusing to accept the request of the applicant acted in accordance with the relevant Laws and Regulations and having exercised itsdiscretion, reachedthe subjudice decisions which were reasonably open to it within its 25 powers. Before concluding, however, it may be observed that it is desirable that the respondent Authority approaches the War service of itspersonnel in the same way as the Government did. Certainly this is within its power. The financial repeicussions. 30 havingregardtotheperiodthatelapsed -over40years-sincethe end of the War, I imagine would not be prohibitive to this Corporation. For the foregoing reasons both recourses fail and are hereby dismissed with no order astocosts. 35 Recoursesdismissed. No order astocosts 803