3 C.L.R. 1988April25 [SAWIDES,J.] DMTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION MARGARITAKIMITRI, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEMINISTRYOFEDUCATION, Respondent. (CaseNo.561186). Discretion ofthe administration—Judicialcontrolofitsexercise—Principles applicable. 5 10 Theapplicant,whoisateacher,waspostedwiththeEducationalMission inEngland.Oneof theconditions of serviceprovided for asubsistence allowancefor notmorethan 15daystobegranted tothe teachers concerned for theirfirstdaysinLondon,ontheapprovaloftheDirectorGeneraloftheMinistry. As the applicant's application was turned down on the ground that when shearrived inEngland her husband hadalready renteda housefor whichshereceivedarentallowance,theapplicantfiledthisrecourse. Held,dismissing therecourse:
(1)Therespondentinreachingthesub judicedecision tookintoconsiderationthefactthattheallowanceinquestionisgrantedinordertocovermainlyanyimmediateaccommodationexpensesoftheteachersconcernedfortheirfirstdaysinEngland. 15
(2)The subsistence allowance, which comes under the heading of transferexpenses,istheonlyonethat isnotgranted asofrightbutisdependentontheapprovaloftheDirector-GeneraloftheMinistryofEducation,therespondentintherecourse. „ ,• • A Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts.' 857 Kimitri v. Republic
(1988)Recourse. Recourse against therefusal of therespondent togrant toapplicant 15day's subsistence allowanceasamemberoftheEducational Missionof Cyprusin England. A. Andreou, for the applicant. St. TheodouloUy for therespondent. Cur. adv. vult. SAVVIDES J. read the following judgment. The applicant challenges thedecision of therespondent, communicated to her by letter dated the 16th June, 1986,whereby her application for 10 thegranttoherof 15day's subsistenceallowanceasamemberof theEducational Mission of Cyprus inEngland, was dismissed. The applicant, whois a teacher, was informed by letter dated 15th May, 1985,that she was selected toparticipate in the Educatinal Mission in England as from the 1st September, 1985,in 15 accordance with theconditions attached totheletter.Oneof those conditions (paragraph 6.4.
- of theconditions which are attached as appendix 'C to the application) provides for a subsistence allowance for not more than 15days to be granted tothe teachers concerned for their first days in London, on the approval of the 20 Director-General of the Ministry. The applicant, together with four other teachers, claimed by letter dated 2nd October, 1985,addressed to the Minister of Finance,thepayment of the subsistenceallowance toher,in accordancewith theaforesaid conditionsof service. 858 25 3 C.L.R. Kimitri v.Republic Savvides J. The Director of thePublic'Administration andPersonnel Servicereplied by letterdated the4th December, 1985,thatthe matter wasunderconsideration, and any decision would becommunicated to the persons interested. Since no decision was 5 communicated tothem byMay, 1986,theapplicant,together with twoof theotherteachers whooriginally applied fortheallowance in question, addressed another letter to the Minister of Finance, requesting areplyonthematter. TheDirector of thePublic Administration andPersonnel Ser10 vice replied by letter dated 3rd June, 1986, that the matter was considered incooperation with theMinistry ofEducation, asaresult of which aprovision was included in the conditions of service of the teachers concerned to the effect that in the cases of married couples who are both members of theEducational Mis15 sion,double the75%of theapproved subsistence allowance will bepaid to them twice,under certain conditions and after theapproval of theDirector-General of theMinistry ofEducation. The letterended byinforming theapplicant and theotherteachersthat theMinistry ofEducation willconsider theircasesand communi20 catewith them. Finally therespondent, after considering thematter,replied by letterdatedthe 16thJune 1986,that theapplicant isnotentitled to theallowanceclaimed becauseherhusband, whoisalsoa memberof theEducational Mission wasreceivingrentallowance since 25 the 1st September, 1985, and the applicant joined her husband and assumed duties on the 15th September, 1985, that is when there wasalready,arented house. Counsel for the applicant based his arguments on the ground that the sub judice decision is wrong in that the respondent in 30 reaching itsdecision wrongly interpreted theterm "subsistenceallowance" in paragraph 6.4.
- of the conditions as having the same meaning as the terms "rent allowance" in paragraph 6.3of theconditions and submitted that thetwo termsrefer totwodistinctand separateallowances and should not be confused. ocn Savvides J. Kimitri v.Republic
(1988)Counsel for the respondent argued that thegranting of subsistence allowance is,according totheconditions of service,within the discretion oftheDirector-General of theMinistry,and thesub judicedecision wasreasonably open tohimhavingregard tothe circumstances of the case. He contended that the allowance in 5 question isgranted for alimited numberofdays inordertocover immediate temporary needs of the teachers concerned until they settle down and the most basicneed intended tobecovered by it is housing. Counsel submitted that the applicant, at the time of her arrival toLondon had nohousing problem, sinceherhusband 10 had already rented a house and wasreceiving rent allowance,and was not, therefore in need of thesubsistence allowance. The whole issue in the present case is whether the subjudice decision wasreasonably open tothe respondent. The remuneration and other allowances of teachers, members 15 of theEducational Mission in England,comes under paragraph 6 of the conditions of service. Thus paragraph 6.1 refers to their monthly salary, paragraph 6.2 to theexpatriation allowance, 6.3 to therent allowance and 6.4 totransfer expenses.Paragraph 6.4 covers air tickets, expenses for air charged for extra weight, 20 packing and insurance expenses and subsistence allowance which comes under paragraph 6.4.4. The subsistence allowance, whichcomes under theheadingof transfer expenses is theonly onethat is not granted asof right is depended on theapproval of theDirector -General of theMinis- 25 tryof Education, therespondent intherecourse. It has been all along the stand of this Court that it will not interfere with adecision of an administrative organ in the exercise of its discretionary powersprovided such powers are legally and reasonably exercised. The respondent in reaching thesubjudice decision took into consideration thefact thattheallowance inquestion isgranted in 860 30 3 C.L.R. Kimitri v. Republic Savvides J. ordertocovermainly anyimmediate accommodation expensesof the teachers concerned for their first days in England and dismissed theclaim of the applicanton theground that her husband hadalreadyrented ahousebythetimesheassumed herduties for 5 which hereceived arent allowance and was not thus in needof anyimmediate temporary accommodation. I find that, in the circumstances, the subjudice decision was reasonably open totherespondent and nocause has been shown for itsannulment. 10 In theresult thisrecourse isdismissed with noorderfor costs. Recourse dismissed. No orderastocosts. 861