Court dismisses appeal against salary revision law, ruling it applies only to officers serving on enactment date.

[*996] 1973 AUGUST. 24

REVISIONAL JURISDICATION

In the matter of article 146 of the constitution

Andreas Zenonos and Others,

Appellants,

And

The Republic of Cyprus, through

The Director of Personnel,

Respondents.

(Case No .258/69).

Police, Fire Brigade Services and Prisons (Revision of Salaries) Law, 1969 (No. 2 of 1969) - Has no retrospective operation - It applies to officers who were in the service on the day of its coming into operation.

Equality - Article 20.1 of the Constitution - Principle of equality - It safeguards against arbitrary discrimination and only persons in similar circumstances are entitled to equal treatment -- Payment, (under the Police, Fire Brigade Services and Prisons (Revision of Salaries) Law, I969) of difference between old and revised salary seales to special constables in the service on date of its enactment - And non-payment to special constables whose services were lawfully terminated before the enactment - Differentiation a reasonable one, in no way arbitrary and does not offend against the principle of equality safeguarded by tire said Article 28.1.

Statutes - Retrospective operation - Principles applicable

- Police, Fire Brigade Services and Prisons (Revision of Salaries) Law, 1969 - Has no retrospective operation.

Constitutional Law -- Article 28.1 of the Constitution

- Principle of equality - See, also, under "Equality".

L. Georghiadou, (Mrs.), for the Applicants.

K. Talarides, for the Respondent.

JUDGEMENT

The following judgment was delivered by:-

L. LOIZOU. J.: By this recourse [*997] the applicants, 21 ex special constables, seek a declaration that the decision of the Respondent, the Director of the Department of Personnel, not to pay to them the difference between the old and the revised salary scales is null and void and of no effect.

The decision in question was communicated to Applicants’ counsel by a letter dated 20th May, 1969, which is exhibit 1 in these proceedings. The reason for Respondent’s refusal, as stated in this letter, is that the Applicants are not entitled to receive the difference because they were employed on a temporary basis and they were not in the service when the Police, Fire Brigade Services and Prisons (Revision of Salaries) Law 1969 (No. 2 of 1969) was published.

The ground of law upon which the application is based is that the decision is contrary to Article 26 of the Constitution and the provisions of Law 2/69.

Law 2/69 was in fact promulgated by publication in the official Gazette of the Republic on the 1Oth January, 1969, It is com1mon ground that none of the Applicants was in the service on that date. It is also clear that the post of special constable was among those affected by Law 2/69 andsalary of the post was increased from £30 to £38. The services of Applicants 2 -21 were terminated on the 30th June, 1968 and those of Applicant

1 on the 15th October, 1968.

By virtue of section 2 of the law the words "appointed day" mean the 1st January, 1968; and the [*998] revised salary scales or fixed salaries as the case may be are substituted for the old salary scales or fixed salaries respectively as from the "appointed day". Section 3(2) of the Law reads as follows:

*[i] "(2) Από της ορισθείσης ημέρας οι μισθοί των κατόχων των ρηθεισών

θέσεων καταβάλλονται εις αυτούς βάσει των νέων κλιμάκων ή νέων μισθών, αναλόγως

της περιπτώσεως."

It was argued on behalf of the Applicants that they are entitled to the difference between the salary they were getting whilst in the service and the revised salary in view of the retrospective effect of the law. It was further argued that the law has retrospective effect in view of the definition of the words "appointed day".

I find myself unable to agree with this proposition. The law is clearly prospective and the fact that by virtue of its definition the "appointed day" is antecedent to the enactment of the law does not make its operation retrospective in the strict sense of the word. In Lauri v. Renad (1892) 3 Ch. 402 Lindley, L.J., said this on the question of retrospective enactments (at p.421).

" .... It is a fundamental rule of English law that no statute shall be construed so as to have a retrospective operation unless its language is such as plainly to require such a construction; and the same rule involves another and subordinate [*999] rule to the effect that a statute is not to be construed so as to have a greater retrospective operation than its language renders necessary."

The above dictum of Lindley, L. Je was cited with approval by Romer L.J. in Nautilus Steam Shipping; Co. Ltd. E parte Gihhs & Co. (1936) 1 Ch.p.17 and was also applied in the more recent case of Re 14 Grafton Street (1971) 2 All E.R. p. 1.

In view of the conclusion that I have reached I cannot hold that the law was intended to apply to officers who were not in the service on the day of its coming into operation; If the law was meant to have retrospective effect I think one would have expected to find appropriate words in the law to this effect. But instead its very wording points to the contrary

conclusion.

Regarding the ground that the decision is contrary to the provisions of Article 28.1 of the Constitution it was argued that this is so because during the period of 1968 when the Applicants were serving as special constables other officers serving in similar posts have eventually received a higher salary by virtue of the provisions of Law 2/69.

I think that there is no substance in this ground either. The conclusion to be drawn from the decided cases on this point starting from the often cited case of Mikrommatis and The Republic 2 R.S. C. C. p. 125 down to the more recent Full Bench case of The Republic of Cyprus and [*1000] Another v. Arakian and Others (1972) 12 J.S.C. p. 1539, and the cases therein cited, is that the object of the provision of the Constitution relating to equality of treatment is to safeguard against arbitrary discrimination and that only persons in similar circumstances are entitled to equal treatment.

In the present case it cannot, in my view, be said that there was no reasonable basis for the differentiation made between the Applicants, whose services were lawfully terminated long before the enactment of the law (2/69) and the other special constables who were in the service on the date of the enactment of the said law. In my opinion, in the light of the above authorities, the decision complained of is in no way arbitrary nor does it offend against the principle of equality safeguarded by Article 28.1,

For all the above reasons this recourse cannot succeed and must be dismissed.

In all the circumstances I do not propose to make any order for costs.

Recourse dismissed.

No order as to costs.

TRANSLATION

This is an English translation of the Greek text appearing at p. 998 ante.

"2. As from the appointed day the salaries of the holders of the said posts are being paid to them on the basis of the new scales or new salaries, as the case may be".

[i]An English translation of this text appears at p. 1000 post.