Right to alternating schedule pay for teacher reassigned due to illnessDerecho al horario alterno de docente reubicada por enfermedad

” V.-On the merits of the case: The plaintiff came to court to claim payment of the salary incentive for alternate schedule (horario alterno) that she had been receiving prior to her transfer to Escuela La Finca 11, for health reasons. […] The thesis outlined at first instance, indeed, is supported by the line of jurisprudence on the subject developed by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.

Thus, through resolution number 2014-000555, of sixteen hundred hours on June third, two thousand fourteen, it was ordered, in pertinent part: "II.- ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE: There is no objection to the fact that, before being reassigned to administrative duties at the Liceo Experimental Bilingüe Los Ángeles of the San Carlos Regional Education Directorate (memo DGP-1029-2006 of February 6, 2006, on page 32 of the document dated 08-08-2012 as well as personnel actions visible on pages 12 to 17 ibidem and documentary evidence on folios 32 to 39 ibidem. Also, memo DRH-PPRH-UL-7302-2012 of August 21, 2012 in the document dated 08-30-2012), the plaintiff worked in the position of Basic General Education Teacher at Escuela Tres Esquinas (memo DGP-1029-2006 of February 6, 2006, in document 32 of the document dated 08-08-2012 and memo DRH-PPRH-UL-7302-2012 of August 21, 2012 in the document dated 08-30-2012). That reassignment became effective as of February 7, 2006 (memo DGP-1029-2006 of February 6, 2006, in document 32 of the document dated 08-08-2012 and memo DRH-PPRH-UL-7302-2012 of August 21, 2012 in the document dated 08-30-2012). On the other hand, it was accepted that in that teaching position the plaintiff earned a salary supplement for alternate schedule, the recognition of which was maintained even up to January 31, 2007 (memo DRH-PPRH-UL-7302-2012 of August 21, 2012 in the document dated 08-30-2012 and personnel actions on pages 9 to 17 of the document dated 08-08-2012). In the defendant's opinion, the extra pay known as alternate schedule is conceived only for those who perform teaching duties, when enrollment needs require it, and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to payment of that supplement if her position is now administrative in nature. However, it must be clear that in this case we are not dealing with a claim made by an official of the administrative sector of the Ministry of Public Education for the recognition of that supplement as an integral and indissoluble part of their salary. The situation under study differs from that assumption because here it involves defining the entitlement to that right of a teaching official who for health reasons has had to be reassigned to an administrative position. The distinction that the state representation seeks to enforce between 'disability' and 'reassignment' ignores the fact that the origin of both is an illness of the official that prevents them from remaining in active teaching service (see that in memo DRH-PPRH-UL-11462-2009 of June 15, 2009, the plaintiff is notified of the extension of her work reassignment for health reasons, which states: "Reassignment according to Letter to Employer CP-1313-2005 dated September 5, 2005, signed by Dr. [Name1] , Medical Chief of the National Insurance Institute. The foregoing based on article 254 of the Labor Code in conjunction with article 22 bis, subsection a) of the Civil Service Statute Regulations", visible on page 36 of the document dated 08-08-2012. See also memo DRH-10993-2010-DIR of October 25, 2010, on page 38 ibidem). It is for this reason that the applicable regulations in cases like this are not only those related to the right to recognition of 'alternate schedule' but also those specifically provided for the purpose. Firsthand, the Special Leave Regulations of the Ministry of Public Education (Reglamento de Licencias Especiales Ministerio de Educación Pública) (Executive Decree No. 19113 of July 28, 1989), in its Article 1 mentions that this regulation aims to establish the rules and procedures that the Ministry of Public Education must follow to grant leave to its employees, due to the diminution of their faculties or aptitudes for work, resulting from work-related risks or illness. For its part, number 2 establishes: 'The leaves referred to in these regulations shall be granted to those employees who, due to the diminution suffered in their faculties or aptitudes, cannot perform, without detriment to their health or the service, the duties and attributions corresponding to the position they had been holding as regular employees.' That regulation distinguishes between permanent leave and partial leave, declaring that the latter is a right of those employees for whom the Costa Rican Social Security Fund or the National Insurance Institute, in their final evaluation, declare a minor permanent disability or a partial or permanent disability and recommend a change of duties. Article 8 specifically addresses the case of granting special leave in the following terms: 'In accordance with the provisions of Article 5 above, the Ministry of Public Education shall grant a special leave to those employees who find themselves in the following circumstances:/a) That according to their ailment the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, recommends in the final evaluation of the treatment their change of duties./ b) That in the final evaluation of the effects of the work-related risk occurred, the National Insurance Institute, determines a minor or partial permanent disability and recommends their incorporation into service with a change of duties' (emphasis supplied). Article 17 states: 'The beneficiaries of the leaves provided for in this regulation shall enjoy a subsidy equivalent to the entirety of their salary in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Statute and the Education Code on the matter' (emphasis supplied). Thus, this regulation complements and does not contradict the provisions of number 174 of the Civil Service Statute, which reads: 'a) If the employee, at the time of being disabled due to illness or maternity, were earning additional salary for zone assignment, for "alternate schedule", or any extra pay, they shall be entitled to a subsidy equivalent to the total salary they were earning at that time./ b) Sick leaves, whatever their duration, shall not interrupt the employees' right to receive the corresponding salary increases./c) For all legal purposes, the subsidy, as well as the aids referred to in Article 167, shall have the character of salary, and shall be, consequently, the basis for calculating pensions and legal benefits, among other items, that may apply.' The regulatory provision develops this express provision, indistinctly contemplating the right to compensation for both the case of permanent leave and special leave. This Chamber has so resolved on previous occasions in which this same topic has been discussed. In ruling number 57 of 9:50 a.m., of January 21, 2011, it was explained: 'IV.- …The State's representative insists that number 174 of the Civil Service Statute is not applicable to the plaintiff, as that rule is only provided for people who are permanently disabled and that her situation must be governed by the provisions of Article 166, according to which, "When leave is granted to the teacher due to duly proven illness, half of the salary prior to the enjoyment of the leave shall be paid in their favor and for a period not exceeding 6 months. In exceptional cases, an extension of this benefit may be authorized for up to two more quarters, if the sick teacher demonstrates their inability to work, with the testimony of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund." However, the chamber has had the opportunity to hear matters identical to this one and has concluded that the cited Article 174 does not exclude personnel enjoying a special leave, due to being partially disabled. The cited number 166 does not establish that its application is possible only for cases of special leave. For its part, Article 174 also does not exclude workers who are partially disabled and enjoying such a leave. The rules do not make any distinction between special and permanent leaves, coupled with the fact that they also do not contemplate any differentiation between these leaves and sick disabilities, apart from the fact that all are based, precisely, on the loss of health due to a disabling illness. See that subsection a) of this latter rule points out that "If the employee, at the time of being disabled due to illness or maternity, were earning additional salary for zone assignment, for alternate schedule, or any extra pay, they shall be entitled to a subsidy equivalent to the total salary they were earning at that time...". Furthermore, from number 173 ibidem it is inferred that the legislator's intention was to protect the integrity of the salary of teaching personnel during the period of disability. Nothing else is deduced from what is indicated in the final paragraph of subsection a), according to which, "...when it is proven that the disability extends to a period greater than four days, their salary shall suffer no deduction", as well as from what is stipulated in subsection b, where it is noted that "if the employee were protected by Social Security, the Ministry of Education will recognize the salary difference up to completing 100% (one hundred percent) of the same; if not, the payment of the salary will be borne by the Ministry of Education." None of those rules refer to an absolute disability or exclude from their application people who enjoy special leave. It is clear that this leave is granted to employees suffering from a minor or partial permanent disability and requiring a change of duties, according to what is established in number 5 of the Special Leave Regulations for employees of the Ministry of Public Education (Executive Decree No. 19113, effective as of July 28, 1989). In number 2 of that regulation, it is also established that: "The leaves referred to in these regulations shall be granted to those employees who, due to the diminution suffered in their faculties or aptitudes, cannot perform, without detriment to their health or the service, the duties and attributions corresponding to the position they had been holding as regular employees." Now, regarding the remuneration that the beneficiaries of this type of leave must receive, the special regulation points out that they are entitled to enjoy a subsidy equivalent to the entirety of their salary, according to what is stipulated in this regard in the Civil Service Statute and in the Education Code. Expressly, Article 17 of the Regulation prescribes: "The beneficiaries of the leaves provided for in this regulation shall enjoy a subsidy equivalent to the entirety of their salary in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Statute and the Education Code on the matter" (boldface is not in the original). From the foregoing, the clear reference to the rules of the cited Statute is noted and, therefore, the application of Article 174 is valid; since, as indicated, that rule makes no exclusion whatsoever of this type of disability.' Consequently, if at the time of reassignment (special leave) the plaintiff earned extra pay for alternate schedule, the right she has, in accordance with that special regulation, to have that supplement included within her remuneration as an administrative official is indisputable, and for this reason, in her case, the granting is independent of the requirements that the employing entity may have for those services. That is, in application of that special provision, the defendant entity could not remove from the subsidy of a salary nature granted to the plaintiff (subsection c, Article 174 ibidem) the supplement for alternate schedule she received before being disabled. In addition to the foregoing, it must be made clear that the current wording of number 174 does not provide grounds to eliminate extra pay, as could be considered according to the wording of that rule before being amended by Law No. 5659, of December 17, 1974, given that its original version indicated that: "...If the disability were to extend to the following school year, in the calculation corresponding to the new school year, the additional sums for zone assignment, alternate schedule, or extra pay for interim duties shall not be included." However, this phrase was eliminated with said reform, from which it is inferred without a doubt, that employees granted sick leave have the right to continue earning the alternate schedule while said leave lasts. This is the basis for which the decision of the lower court to deny the plaintiff payment of the differences in alternate schedule is illegitimate, despite the fact that it is proven that she received that extra pay in her work as a teacher, prior to the time of availing herself of the special leave. It should be emphasized that this Chamber, also repeatedly, has indicated: "The grievance according to which a distinction must be made between special leaves, permanent leaves, and sick leaves or maternity leaves, and the one related to the issue that what was received were subsidies and not salaries, are also not admissible. The foregoing because it is clear that all of them are based on an illness and the aforementioned Article 174 textually states that in this case what is received has a salary nature" (underline added). (In the same sense, see rulings of this Chamber, numbers 2001-591; 2004-965; 2005-304; 2005-395; 2006-1102; 2006-1108; 2007-91; 2008-62; 2008-96; 2008-442; 2008-634; 2010-537 and 2010-1510). Due to the way in which the judges of the preceding instance resolved and in the terms that are decided in this third instance on the main issue of the dispute (the recognition of the alternate schedule while she was reassigned), it is necessary to refer to some aspects of the appeal filed by the defendant party, which will be done in the following recitals." That criterion was confirmed by ruling number 2017-001001, of eleven forty-five hours on July nineteenth, two thousand seventeen, which in pertinent part indicated: "III.- ANALYSIS OF THE CASE: There was no controversy regarding that, when the plaintiff was reassigned to administrative duties for health reasons (based on Article 254 of the Labor Code), he was receiving a supplement for overload of interim lessons (recargo de lecciones interinas). Articles 118 of the Education Code and 13 of the Procedures Manual for Managing Teaching Personnel allow for imposing certain overloads on teachers. It is true that these kinds of extra pay do not constitute an acquired right and that payment must be suspended when the employee, in the exercise of their usual duties, ceases to meet the requirements for its recognition. However, this matter does not deal with an employee who, in the normal exercise of their duties, ceases to fall within the assumptions that make payment of the overload viable; but rather a person who, for health reasons, is prevented from continuing to carry out their usual tasks. The appellant states that numbers 167 and 174 of the Civil Service Statute were improperly applied, given that these rules presuppose the existence of a disability or a special leave, which did not occur in this matter, since there is only a reassignment for health reasons. In relation to that argument, it must be indicated that the Chamber has resolved numerous matters similar to this one, without any circumstance being seen in the sublitem that warrants a change of criterion. It has been considered that in cases of this type, Executive Decree No. 19113 of July 28, 1989, called Special Leave Regulations for Employees of the Ministry of Public Education, is applicable (without it being possible to consider, as is alleged in the appeal, that this became unsupported upon the repeal of canon 167 of the Civil Service Statute, since this was not the only rule that served as its support). In the first precept of that regulation it is pointed out that it provides the rules and procedures that the cited Ministry must follow to grant leave to employees, due to the diminution of their faculties or aptitudes for work, derived from a work-related risk or a common illness. In the second article it is reaffirmed that leaves will be granted to those who suffer a diminution in their faculties and who for this reason cannot perform the duties and attributions of the position they had been holding. In accordance with the provisions of numbers 5 and 8, employees for whom the CCSS or the INS declare a minor or partial permanent disability and recommend a change of duties, are entitled to a special leave. Now, canon 9 stipulates that prior to the granting of the leave, the Ministry will proceed with the reassignment of the employee, which is ratified in the following rules, according to which "this special leave may be suspended, at the discretion of the Minister of Public Education, for the purpose of assigning tasks and duties compatible with their personal conditions, with the medical recommendations and the academic training of the beneficiary, that are required on a temporary basis" and that "the Ministry of Public Education may make use of the human resource who was enjoying special leave for the attention of tasks and duties of an administrative, administrative-teaching, or technical nature, in any of its dependencies, when such services are required for the proper functioning of the institutions or to implement special programs" - which fully corresponds with Article 254 of the Labor Code. Then, in ordinal 17 it is stated: "The beneficiaries of the leaves provided for in this regulation shall enjoy a subsidy equivalent to the entirety of their salary in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Statute and the Education Code on the matter." It has been concluded that this regulation complements number 174 of the Civil Service Statute, which makes no distinction between permanent or partial disabilities; hence no distinction can be made for payment purposes between permanent and special leaves. Consequently, if at the time of reassignment the plaintiff earned extra pay for interim lessons, the right he has, in accordance with that special regulation, to have that supplement included within his remuneration as an administrative official is indisputable. In that line of thought, in ruling No. 308-2014 of this Chamber it was explained: "In the defendant's opinion, the extra pay known as alternate schedule and from the technical advisory committee, are conceived only for those who perform teaching duties, when enrollment needs require it; and depending on the academic credentials of the official, thus the plaintiff is not entitled to payment of those supplements if her position is now administrative in nature. However, it must be clear that in this case we are not dealing with a claim made by an official of the administrative sector of the Ministry of Public Education, for the recognition of the supplements as an integral and indissoluble part of their salary. The situation under study differs from that assumption because here it involves defining the entitlement to that right of a teaching official who for health reasons has had to be reassigned to an administrative position. The distinction that the state representation seeks to enforce between 'disability' and 'reassignment' ignores the fact that the origin of both is an illness of the official that prevents them from remaining in active teaching service. It is for this reason that the applicable regulations in cases like this are not only those related to the right to recognition of alternate schedule, but also those specifically provided for the purpose. Firsthand, the Special Leave Regulations of the Ministry of Public Education (Executive Decree No. 19113 of July 28, 1989), whose Article 1 mentions that this regulation aims to establish the rules and procedures that the Ministry of Public Education must follow to grant leave to its employees, due to the diminution of their faculties or aptitudes for work, resulting from work-related risks or illness. For its part, number 2 establishes: 'The leaves referred to in these regulations shall be granted to those employees who, due to the diminution suffered in their faculties or aptitudes, cannot perform, without detriment to their health or the service, the duties and attributions corresponding to the position they had been holding as regular employees.' (Highlighting is added). Later, according to Article 5, those employees for whom the Costa Rican Social Security Fund or the National Insurance Institute, in their final evaluation, declare a minor permanent disability or a partial or permanent disability and recommend a change of duties are entitled to be granted a special leave. Article 8 specifically addresses the case of granting special leave in the following terms: 'In accordance with the provisions of Article 5 above, the Ministry of Public Education shall grant a special leave to those employees who find themselves in the following circumstances: a) That according to their ailment the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, recommends in the final evaluation of the treatment their change of duties. b) That in the final evaluation of the effects of the work-related risk occurred, the National Insurance Institute, determines a minor or partial permanent disability and recommends their incorporation into service with a change of duties' (emphasis supplied). Subsequently, Articles 9 and 10, in order, establish: 'Prior to the granting of the leave and in accordance with the availability of positions and the requirements of the interested party, the Ministry of Public Education will proceed with their reassignment, transfer, or promotion, as appropriate.' And, 'When it is not feasible, immediately, to apply the provisions of the previous article, the special leave shall be granted until the corresponding personnel movement can be carried out.' In addition, number 12 states: 'Likewise, the Ministry of Public Education may make use of the human resource who was enjoying special leave for the attention of tasks and duties of an administrative, administrative-teaching, or technical nature, in any of its dependencies when such services are required for the proper functioning of the institutions or to implement special programs.' Finally, Article 17 states: 'The beneficiaries of the leaves provided for in this regulation shall enjoy a subsidy equivalent to the entirety of their salary in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Statute and the Education Code on the matter' (emphasis supplied). Thus, this regulation complements and does not contradict the provisions of number 174 of the Civil Service Statute, which reads: 'a) If the employee, at the time of being disabled due to illness or maternity, were earning additional salary for zone assignment, for alternate schedule, or any extra pay, they shall be entitled to a subsidy equivalent to the total salary they were earning at that time. b) Sick leaves, whatever their duration, shall not interrupt the employees' right to receive the corresponding salary increases. c) For all legal purposes, the subsidy, as well as the aids referred to in Article 167, shall have the character of salary, and shall be, consequently, the basis for calculating pensions and legal benefits, among other items, that may apply.' (Highlighting is added). The regulatory provision develops this express provision, indistinctly contemplating the right to compensation for both the case of permanent leave and special leave." The argument that since the overload was not worked it cannot be paid is not admissible, as this was due to the need to reassign the employee to duties other than teaching, for health reasons. The regulation confers the right to continue receiving, in those circumstances, "a subsidy equivalent to the entirety of their salary." Hence it cannot be concluded, as is intended, that the nature of the overload was distorted or that public funds are unjustifiably affected, since the applicable rules are those that generate those legal consequences. For the foregoing, it is not true that Articles 15 of the Public Administration Salary Law and 56 of the Law against Illicit Enrichment in Public Office have been violated. The former refers to the possibility that the limit of forty weekly lessons be exceeded when the service so requires, maintaining the excess as a temporary overload. That provision does not regulate the situation that is being discussed here and is provided for the effective exercise of teaching duties, not for cases of employees who enjoy a disability or leave. The other rule, on its side, could not have been violated, as it refers to the penalization for granting improper extra pay, which does not occur in this case. It should be noted that the criteria of other judicial offices, labor or administrative litigation, are not binding on this Chamber. Furthermore, what has been decided is not opposed to the position of the Constitutional Court in the sense that overloads are temporary in nature and do not constitute an acquired right, given that the trial does not refer to the situation of an active employee in duties that may or may not demand the overload, but rather the issue is limited to determining the remuneration that an employee who has been unable to continue performing their normal tasks nor the overloads they had been exercising, due to a health impairment, must receive. In pronouncement No. 1246-2016 of this Office it was stated: "This Chamber has been clear in indicating that, in reassignments for health reasons, the salary must be maintained as the plaintiff requests, because, having been reassigned for health reasons to administrative duties, one is in a situation comparable to a partial disability, since it is medically considered that if they continued teaching, the employee's health would continue to deteriorate due to occupational risk and therefore their reassignment is recommended. Thus, Article 174 of the Civil Service Statute is applicable to these cases, a number that does not differentiate between special and permanent leaves, or between leave or disability situations, all of which originate from disabling health reasons. Thus, Article 174, in its subsection a) clearly mentions that if the employee is earning additional salary for items such as alternate schedule or any other extra pay at the time of being disabled, they are entitled to payment of a subsidy equivalent to the total salary they were earning at that time. Although in the subjúdice there is no formally granted special leave, in accordance with the respective Regulation, the truth is that in practice, a situation of partial disability exists by virtue of which the reassignment contemplated in Article 22 bis of the Civil Service Statute Regulations occurs." V.- ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE: The plaintiff came to the jurisdictional venue to claim payment of the salary incentive for alternate schedule (horario alterno) that she received prior to her transfer to the Escuela La Finca 11, for reasons of illness. [...] The thesis outlined in the first instance, in effect, is supported by the jurisprudential line on the subject developed by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.

Thus, through resolution number 2014-000555, at sixteen hours on June third, two thousand fourteen, it was ordered, as relevant: "II.- ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE: There is no objection to the fact that, before being reubicada in administrative functions at the Liceo Experimental Bilingüe Los Ángeles of the Dirección Regional de Educación de San Carlos (official letter DGP-1029-2006 of February 6, 2006, on page 32 of the document dated 08-08-2012 as well as personnel actions visible on pages 12 to 17 ibidem and documentary evidence on folios 32 to 39 ibidem. Also, official letter DRH-PPRH-UL-7302-2012 of August 21, 2012 in the document dated 30-08-2012), the plaintiff worked as a General Basic Education Teacher at the Escuela Tres Esquinas (official letter DGP-1029-2006 of February 6, 2006, in document 32 of the document dated 08-08-2012 and official letter DRH-PPRH-UL-7302-2012 of August 21, 2012 in the document dated 30-08-2012). This relocation (reubicación) became effective as of February 7, 2006 (official letter DGP-1029-2006 of February 6, 2006, in document 32 of the document dated 08-08-2012 and official letter DRH-PPRH-UL-7302-2012 of August 21, 2012 in the document dated 30-08-2012). On the other hand, it was accepted that in that teaching position the plaintiff earned a salary supplement for alternate schedule (horario alterno), the recognition of which was maintained even until January 31, 2007 (official letter DRH-PPRH-UL-7302-2012 of August 21, 2012 in the document dated 30-08-2012 and personnel actions from pages 9 to 17 of the document dated 08-08-2012). In the defendant's opinion, the extra pay known as alternate schedule (horario alterno) is conceived only for those who perform teaching functions, when enrollment needs require it, so the plaintiff does not have the right to payment of that supplement if her position is now administrative in nature. However, it must be clear that in this case we are not dealing with a claim made by an official from the administrative sector of the Ministry of Public Education for the recognition of that supplement as an integral and indissoluble part of his or her salary. The situation under study differs from that assumption because here it is about defining the entitlement to that right for a teaching official who, for health reasons, had to be relocated (reubicada) to an administrative position. The difference that the state representation tries to assert between "incapacity" (incapacidad) and "relocation" (reubicación) ignores that the origin of both is an illness of the official that prevents him or her from remaining in active teaching service (see that in official letter DRH-PPRH-UL-11462-2009 of June 15, 2009, a health-related work relocation extension was communicated to the plaintiff, in which it is stated: "Relocation according to Carta al Patrono CP-1313-2005 dated September 5, 2005, signed by Dr. [Name 1], Medical Chief of the National Insurance Institute. The foregoing based on Article 254 of the Labor Code in concordance with Article 22 bis, subsection a) of the Regulation of the Civil Service Statute", visible on page 36 of the document dated 08-08-2012. See also official letter DRH-10993-2010-DIR of October 25, 2010, on page 38 ibidem). It is for this reason that the applicable regulations in cases like this are not only those related to the right to recognition of "alternate schedule" (horario alterno) but that which is specifically provided for this purpose. First of all, the Regulation for Special Leaves Ministry of Public Education (Reglamento de Licencias Especiales Ministerio de Educación Pública, Executive Decree number 19113 of July 28, 1989), in its Article 1 mentions that this regulation aims to establish the norms and procedures that the Ministry of Public Education must follow to grant leave to its servants, due to the decrease in their faculties or aptitudes for work, stemming from occupational hazards or illness. For its part, numeral 2 establishes: "The leaves referred to in this regulation shall be granted to those servants who, due to the decrease suffered in their faculties or aptitudes, could not perform, without detriment to their health or the service, the functions and attributions corresponding to the position they had been holding as regular servants". That regulation distinguishes between permanent leave (licencia permanente) and partial leave (licencia parcial), declaring that the latter is the right of those servants for whom the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social) or the National Insurance Institute (Instituto Nacional de Seguros), in their final evaluation, declare a permanent minor incapacity (incapacidad menor permanente) or a partial or permanent incapacity (incapacidad parcial o permanente) and recommend a change of functions. Article 8 specifically deals with the assumption of granting a special leave (licencia especial) in the following terms: "In accordance with the provisions of Article 5 above, the Ministry of Public Education shall grant a special leave (licencia especial) to those servants who find themselves in the following circumstances: /a) That according to their ailment, the Costa Rican Social Security Fund recommends in the final treatment evaluation a change of functions. / b) That in the final evaluation of the effects of the occupational hazard that occurred, the National Insurance Institute determines a minor or partial permanent incapacity and recommends their incorporation into service with a change of functions" (emphasis supplied). Article 17 says: "The beneficiaries of the leaves provided for in this regulation shall enjoy a subsidy equivalent to the totality of their salary in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Statute and the Education Code on the matter" (emphasis supplied). So this regulation complements and does not contradict the provisions of numeral 174 of the Civil Service Statute, which reads: "a) If the servant, at the moment of becoming disabled due to illness or maternity, were earning additional salary for location allowance (zonaje), for 'alternate schedule' (horario alterno), or any extra pay, he or she shall have the right to a subsidy equivalent to the total salary that at that moment he or she was earning. / b) Leaves due to illness, whatever their duration, shall not interrupt the right that servants have to receive the corresponding salary increases. / c) For all legal effects, both the subsidy and the aids referred to in Article 167 shall have the character of salary, and shall be, consequently, the basis for calculating pensions and legal benefits, among other items, that may correspond". The regulatory norm develops this express provision, contemplating indistinctly the right to compensation both for the case of permanent leave (licencia permanente) and for the special leave (licencia especial). This is how this Chamber has resolved on previous occasions in which this same issue has been discussed. In judgment number 57 at 9:50 hours, of January 21, 2011, it was explained: "IV.- ...The State representative insists that numeral 174 of the Civil Service Statute is not applicable to the plaintiff, since that norm is only provided for people who become permanently disabled (incapacidad permanente) and that her situation must be governed by what is established in Article 166, according to which, 'When the leave is granted to the teacher for duly proven illness, half of the salary prior to enjoying the leave shall be paid in his or her favor for a period not exceeding 6 months. In exceptional cases, an extension of this benefit may be authorized for up to two more quarters, if the sick teacher proves his or her incapacity to work, with the testimony of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund'. However, the chamber has had the opportunity to hear cases identical to the present one and has concluded that the cited Article 174 does not exclude personnel who enjoy a special leave (licencia especial), for being partially incapacitated. The cited numeral 166 does not establish that its application is only possible for cases of special leave. For its part, Article 174 also does not exclude partially incapacitated workers who enjoy a leave of that type. The norms make no distinction whatsoever between special leave (licencias especiales) and permanent leave (licencias permanentes), coupled with the fact that they also do not contemplate any differentiation between these leaves and incapacities due to illness, apart from the fact that they are all based precisely on the loss of health due to a disabling illness. See that subsection a) of this latter norm indicates that 'If the servant, at the moment of becoming disabled due to illness or maternity, were earning additional salary for location allowance (zonaje), for alternate schedule (horario alterno), or any extra pay, he or she shall have the right to a subsidy equivalent to the total salary that at that moment he or she was earning...'. In addition, from numeral 173 ibidem it emerges that the legislator's intention was to protect the integrity of the teaching personnel's salary during the period of incapacity (incapacidad). Nothing else is deduced from what is indicated in the final paragraph of subsection a), according to which, '...when it is proven that the incapacity extends to a period longer than four days, their salary shall not suffer any deduction', as well as from what is stipulated in subsection b, where it is noted that 'if the servant were protected by Social Security, the Ministry of Education shall recognize the salary difference until completing 100% (one hundred percent) thereof; if not, the salary payment shall be borne by the Ministry of Education'. None of these norms refer to an absolute incapacity (incapacidad absoluta) or exclude from its application people who enjoy a special leave (licencia especial). It is clear that this leave is granted to the servants who suffer a permanent minor or partial incapacity (incapacidad menor o parcial permanente) and require a change of functions, according to what is established in numeral 5 of the Regulation for special leaves for servants of the Ministry of Public Education (Reglamento de licencias especiales para los servidores del Ministerio de Educación Pública, Executive Decree No. 19113, effective as of July 28, 1989). In numeral 2 of that regulation, it is also established that: 'The leaves referred to in this regulation shall be granted to those servants who, due to the decrease suffered in their faculties or aptitudes, could not perform, without detriment to their health or the service, the functions and attributions corresponding to the position they had been holding as regular servants'. Now then, regarding the remuneration that the beneficiaries of this type of leave must receive, the special regulation points out that they have the right to enjoy a subsidy equivalent to the totality of their salary, according to what is stipulated in this regard in the Civil Service Statute and in the Education Code. Expressly, Article 17 of the Regulation prescribes: 'The beneficiaries of the leaves provided for in this regulation shall enjoy a subsidy equivalent to the totality of their salary in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Statute and the Education Code on the matter' (bold is not in the original). From the transcribed text, a clear remission to the norms of the cited Statute is observed and, therefore, the application of Article 174 is valid; since, as indicated, in that norm no exclusion whatsoever is made of this type of incapacity". Consequently, if at the time of relocation (licencia especial) the plaintiff was earning an extra pay for alternate schedule (horario alterno), the right she has, according to that special regulation, for that supplement to be included within her remuneration as an administrative official is indisputable, and therefore, in her case, the granting is independent of the employer entity's requirements for those services. That is, in application of that special provision, the defendant entity could not suppress from the subsidy with salary nature granted to the plaintiff (subsection c, Article 174 ibidem) the supplement for alternate schedule (horario alterno) that she received before being incapacitated. In addition to the above, it must be made clear that the current wording of numeral 174 does not give rise to eliminating extra pays, as could be considered according to the wording of that norm before being modified by Law number 5659, of December 17, 1974, since in its original version it was indicated that: "...If the incapacity were to extend to the following school year, in the calculation corresponding to the new course, the additional sums for location allowance (zonaje), alternate schedule (horario alterno), or for extra pay for interim functions shall not be included". However, this phrase was eliminated with said reform, from which it is inferred without a doubt, that the servants covered by a leave due to illness have the right to continue earning the alternate schedule (horario alterno) while that leave lasts. This is the basis on which the tribunal's decision to deny the plaintiff payment of the differences in alternate schedule (horario alterno) is illegitimate, despite the fact that it is accredited that she received that extra pay in her work as a teacher, prior to the moment of availing herself of the special leave. It should be emphasized that this Chamber, also repeatedly, has indicated: "The grievance according to which a distinction must be made between special leaves (licencias especiales), permanent leaves (licencias permanentes), and incapacities due to illness or maternity (incapacidades por enfermedad o maternidad) and the one related to the issue that what was received were subsidies and not salaries are also not admissible. The foregoing because it is clear that all of them are based on an illness and the referred Article 174 textually indicates that in that scenario what is received has a salary nature" (underline added). (In the same sense, judgments of this Chamber, numbers 2001-591; 2004-965; 2005-304; 2005-395; 2006-1102; 2006-1108; 2007-91; 2008-62; 2008-96; 2008-442; 2008-634; 2010-537 and 2010-1510 may be consulted). Due to the manner in which the judges of the preceding instance resolved and in the terms decided in this third instance on the main issue of the litis (the recognition of the alternate schedule (horario alterno) while she was relocated), it is necessary to refer to some aspects of the appeal filed by the defendant party, which will be done in the following recitals." That criterion was confirmed by judgment number 2017-001001, at eleven hours and forty-five minutes on July nineteenth, two thousand seventeen, which, as relevant, indicated: "III.- CASE ANALYSIS: There was no controversy regarding the fact that, when the plaintiff was relocated (reubicado) in administrative functions for health reasons (based on Article 254 of the Labor Code), he was receiving a supplement for overload of interim lessons (recargo de lecciones interinas). Articles 118 of the Education Code and 13 of the Procedure Manual for Managing Teaching Personnel allow imposing certain overloads on teachers. It is true that that kind of extra pay does not constitute an acquired right and that payment must be suspended when the serving person, in the exercise of his or her usual functions, ceases to meet the requirements demanded for its recognition. However, the present matter does not deal with a servant who, in the normal exercise of his functions, ceases to be in the situations that make payment of the overload viable; but rather a person who, for health reasons, is impeded from continuing to perform his usual tasks. The appellant states that numerals 167 and 174 of the Civil Service Statute were improperly applied, given that said norms presuppose the existence of an incapacity (incapacidad) or a special leave (licencia especial), which in this matter did not occur, since there only exists a relocation for health reasons (reubicación por razones de salud). In relation to that approach, it must be indicated that the Chamber has resolved numerous matters similar to the present one, without any circumstance being noted in this sub-lite that merits a change of criterion. It has been estimated that in cases of this type, Executive Decree No. 19113 of July 28, 1989, called the Regulation for Special Leaves for Servants of the Ministry of Public Education (Reglamento de Licencias Especiales para los Servidores del Ministerio de Educación Pública) is applicable (without it being possible to consider, as alleged in the appeal, that it was left without support when canon 167 of the Civil Service Statute was repealed, since this was not the only norm that served as its support). In the first precept of that regulation, it is indicated that there are provided for there the norms and procedures that the cited Ministry must follow to grant leave to the serving persons, due to the decrease in their faculties or aptitudes for work, derived from an occupational hazard or a common illness. In article two it is reaffirmed that the leaves shall be granted to those who suffer a decrease in their faculties and who, because of this, cannot perform the functions and attributions of the position they had been exercising. In accordance with what is prescribed in numerals 5 and 8, the serving persons for whom the CCSS or the INS declare a permanent minor or partial incapacity and recommend a change of functions, have the right to a special leave (licencia especial). Now then, canon 9 stipulates that prior to granting the leave, the Ministry shall proceed to the relocation (reubicación) of the serving person, which is ratified in the following norms, according to which "this special leave may be suspended, at the judgment of the Minister of Public Education, for the purpose of assigning tasks and functions compatible with their personal conditions, with the medical recommendations and the academic background of the beneficiary, which are temporarily required" and that "the Ministry of Public Education may make use of the human resource that was enjoying a special leave to attend tasks and functions of an administrative, administrative-teaching, or technical nature, in any of its dependencies, when such services are required for the proper functioning of the institutions or to implement special programs" - which fully corresponds with Article 254 of the Labor Code. Then, in ordinal 17 it is indicated: "The beneficiaries of the leaves provided for in this regulation shall enjoy a subsidy equivalent to the totality of their salary in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Statute and the Education Code on the matter". It has been concluded that this regulation complements numeral 174 of the Civil Service Statute, which makes no difference between permanent incapacities (incapacidades permanentes) or partial incapacities (incapacidades parciales); hence, it is also not appropriate to make a distinction for payment purposes between permanent leave (licencias permanentes) and special leave (licencias especiales). Consequently, if at the time of the relocation the plaintiff was earning an extra pay for interim lessons (lecciones interinas), the right he has, according to that special regulation, for that supplement to be included within his remuneration as an administrative official is indisputable. In that line of thinking, in the judgment of this Chamber No. 308-2014 it was explained: "In the defendant's opinion, the extra pays known as alternate schedule (horario alterno) and advisory technical committee (comité técnico asesor) are conceived only for those who perform teaching functions, when enrollment needs require it; and depending on the academic credentials of the official, so the plaintiff does not have the right to the payment of those supplements if her position is now administrative in nature. However, it must be clear that in this case we are not dealing with a claim made by an official from the administrative sector of the Ministry of Public Education, for the recognition of the supplements as an integral and indissoluble part of his or her salary. The situation under study differs from that assumption because here it is about defining the entitlement to that right for a teaching official who, for health reasons, had to be relocated (reubicada) to an administrative position. The difference that the state representation tries to assert between 'incapacity' (incapacidad) and 'relocation' (reubicación) ignores that the origin of both is an illness of the official that prevents him or her from remaining in active teaching service. It is for this reason that the applicable regulations in cases like this are not only those related to the right to recognition of alternate schedule (horario alterno), but that which is specifically provided for this purpose. First of all, the Regulation for Special Leaves Ministry of Public Education (Reglamento de Licencias Especiales Ministerio de Educación Pública, Executive Decree number 19113 of July 28, 1989), whose Article 1 mentions that this regulation aims to establish the norms and procedures that the Ministry of Public Education must follow to grant leave to its servants, due to the decrease in their faculties or aptitudes for work, stemming from occupational hazards or illness. For its part, numeral 2 establishes: 'The leaves to which this regulation refers shall be granted to those servants who, due to the decrease suffered in their faculties or aptitudes, could not perform, without detriment to their health or the service, the functions and attributions corresponding to the position they had been holding as regular servants'. (The highlighting is added). Then, in accordance with Article 5, those servants have the right to be granted a special leave (licencia especial) for whom the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social) or the National Insurance Institute (Instituto Nacional de Seguros), in their final evaluation, declare a permanent minor incapacity (incapacidad menor permanente) or a partial or permanent incapacity (incapacidad parcial o permanente) and recommend a change of functions. Article 8 specifically deals with the assumption of granting a special leave (licencia especial) in the following terms: 'In accordance with the provisions of Article 5 above, the Ministry of Public Education shall grant a special leave (licencia especial) to those servants who find themselves in the following circumstances: a) That according to their ailment, the Costa Rican Social Security Fund recommends in the final treatment evaluation a change of functions. b) That in the final evaluation of the effects of the occupational hazard that occurred, the National Insurance Institute determines a minor or partial permanent incapacity and recommends their incorporation into service with a change of functions' (emphasis supplied). Subsequently, Articles 9 and 10, in order, establish: 'Prior to the granting of the leave and in accordance with the availability of positions and the requirements of the interested party, the Ministry of Public Education shall proceed to their relocation, transfer, or promotion, as appropriate'. And, 'When the application of the provision in the preceding article is immediately viable, the special leave (licencia especial) shall be granted until the corresponding personnel movement can be carried out'.

V.- On the merits of the case: The plaintiff came to the jurisdictional venue to claim payment of the salary incentive for alternate schedule (horario alterno) that she received prior to her transfer to Escuela La Finca 11, for reasons of illness. [...] The thesis outlined in the first instance, in effect, has support in the jurisprudential line on the subject developed by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.

Thus, through resolution number 2014-000555, of sixteen hours on June third, two thousand fourteen, it was ordered, as relevant: "II.- ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE: There is no objection to the fact that, before being reassigned to administrative functions at the Liceo Experimental Bilingüe Los Ángeles of the Dirección Regional de Educación de San Carlos (official communication DGP-1029-2006 of February 6, 2006, on page 32 of the document dated 08-08-2012 as well as personnel actions visible on pages 12 to 17 thereof and documentary evidence on folios 32 to 39 thereof. Also, official communication DRH-PPRH-UL-7302-2012 of August 21, 2012 in the document dated 08-30-2012), the plaintiff worked in the position of Profesora de Enseñanza General Básica at Escuela Tres Esquinas (official communication DGP-1029-2006 of February 6, 2006, in document 32 of the document dated 08-08-2012 and official communication DRH-PPRH-UL-7302-2012 of August 21, 2012 in the document dated 08-30-2012). That reassignment became effective as of February 7, 2006 (official communication DGP-1029-2006 of February 6, 2006, in document 32 of the document dated 08-08-2012 and official communication DRH-PPRH-UL-7302-2012 of August 21, 2012 in the document dated 08-30-2012). On the other hand, it was accepted that in that teaching position, the plaintiff earned a salary bonus for alternate schedule (horario alterno), the recognition of which was maintained until January 31, 2007 (official communication DRH-PPRH-UL-7302-2012 of August 21, 2012 in the document dated 08-30-2012, and personnel actions on pages 9 to 17 of the document dated 08-08-2012). In the defendant's opinion, the bonus known as alternate schedule (horario alterno) is conceived solely for those who perform teaching functions, when enrollment needs require it, and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to payment of that bonus if her position is now of an administrative nature. However, it must be clear that in this case, we are not faced with a claim by an official from the administrative sector of the Ministry of Public Education for recognition of that bonus as an integral and indissoluble part of their salary. The situation under study differs from that assumption because the matter here is about defining the right of a teaching official who, for health reasons, has had to be reassigned to an administrative position. The distinction that the state representation seeks to assert between 'incapacity' (incapacidad) and 'reassignment' (reubicación) ignores the fact that the origin of both is an illness of the official that prevents them from remaining in active teaching service (see that in official communication DRH-PPRH-UL-11462-2009 of June 15, 2009, the plaintiff is notified of the extension of her work reassignment for health reasons, which states: "Reassignment according to Carta al Patrono CP-1313-2005 dated September 5, 2005, signed by Dr. [Name1], Medical Chief of the Instituto Nacional de Seguros. The above is based on Article 254 of the Código de Trabajo in accordance with Article 22 bis, subsection a) of the Reglamento del Estatuto del Servicio Civil", visible on page 36 of the document dated 08-08-2012. See also official communication DRH-10993-2010-DIR of October 25, 2010, on page 38 thereof). It is for this reason that the applicable regulations in cases like this are not only those related to the right to recognition of "alternate schedule (horario alterno)" but those specifically provided for the purpose. Firsthand, the Reglamento de Licencias Especiales Ministerio de Educación Pública (Executive Decree number 19113 of July 28, 1989), in its Article 1, mentions that this regulation aims to establish the rules and procedures that the Ministry of Public Education must follow to grant leave (licencia) to its employees, due to the diminution of their faculties or aptitudes for work, survivors of occupational hazards or illness. For its part, numeral 2 establishes: "The leaves (licencias) referred to in this regulation shall be granted to those employees who, due to the diminution suffered in their faculties or aptitudes, cannot perform, without detriment to their health or to the service, the functions and attributions corresponding to the position they had been performing as regular employees." That regulation distinguishes between permanent leave (licencia permanente) and partial leave (licencia parcial), declaring that those employees for whom the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social or the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, in its final assessment, declare a minor permanent incapacity or a partial or permanent incapacity and recommend a change of functions, have the right to the latter. Article 8 specifically addresses the case of granting special leave (licencia especial) in the following terms: "In accordance with the provisions of the foregoing Article 5, the Ministry of Public Education shall grant a special leave (licencia especial) to those employees who find themselves in the following circumstances:/ a) That according to their ailment, the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social recommends, in the final assessment of the treatment, a change of functions./ b) That in the final assessment of the effects of the occupational hazard that occurred, the Instituto Nacional de Seguros determines a minor or partial permanent incapacity and recommends their return to service with a change of functions" (emphasis supplied). Article 17 says: "The beneficiaries of the leaves (licencias) provided for in this regulation shall enjoy a subsidy equivalent to the totality of their salary in accordance with the provisions of the Estatuto de Servicio Civil and the Código de Educación on the matter" (emphasis supplied). Thus, this regulation complements and does not contradict the provisions of numeral 174 of the Estatuto de Servicio Civil, which reads: "a) If the employee, at the time of becoming incapacitated (incapacitarse) due to illness or maternity, was earning additional salary for location allowance (zonaje), for 'alternate schedule' (horario alterno), or any bonus, they shall be entitled to a subsidy equivalent to the total salary they were earning at that time./ b) Leaves (licencias) due to illness, regardless of their duration, shall not interrupt the right that employees have to receive the corresponding salary increases./ c) For all legal effects, both the subsidy and the aids referred to in Article 167 shall have the character of salary, and shall consequently be the basis for the calculation of pensions and legal benefits, among other aspects, that may correspond." The regulatory norms develop this express provision, contemplating indiscriminately the right to compensation for the case of both permanent leave (licencia permanente) and special leave (licencia especial). This Chamber has so resolved on previous occasions where this same issue has been discussed. In judgment number 57 at 9:50 hours, of January 21, 2011, it was explained: "IV.- ...The State's representative insists that numeral 174 of the Estatuto de Servicio Civil is not applicable to the plaintiff, because that rule is only provided for people who become permanently incapacitated (incapacitarse) and that her situation must be governed by the provisions of Article 166, according to which, 'When the leave (licencia) is granted to the teacher due to duly verified illness, half of the salary prior to the enjoyment of the leave (licencia) shall be paid to them for a period not exceeding 6 months. In exceptional cases, an extension of this benefit may be authorized for up to two more quarters, if the ill teacher proves their inability to work, with the testimony of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social.' However, the Chamber has had the opportunity to hear cases identical to the present one and has concluded that the cited Article 174 does not exclude personnel enjoying a special leave (licencia especial), for being partially incapacitated. The cited numeral 166 does not establish that its application is applicable only for cases of special leaves (licencias especiales). For its part, Article 174 does not exclude workers who are partially incapacitated and enjoying such a leave (licencia). The norms do not make any distinction between special (especiales) and permanent (permanentes) leaves (licencias), coupled with the fact that they do not contemplate any differentiation between these leaves (licencias) and incapacities (incapacidades) due to illness, apart from the fact that all are based precisely on the loss of health due to a disabling illness. See that subsection a) of this last rule states that 'If the employee, at the time of becoming incapacitated (incapacitarse) due to illness or maternity, was earning additional salary for location allowance (zonaje), for alternate schedule (horario alterno), or any bonus, they shall be entitled to a subsidy equivalent to the total salary they were earning at that time...'. Furthermore, from numeral 173 thereof, it follows that the legislator's intention was to protect the integrity of the salary of teaching personnel during the period of incapacity (incapacidad). Nothing else can be deduced from what is indicated in the final paragraph of subsection a), according to which, '...when it is proven that the incapacity (incapacidad) extends for a period longer than four days, their salary shall not suffer any deduction', as well as from the provisions of subsection b), where it is noted that 'if the employee were protected by Seguro Social, the Ministry of Education shall recognize the salary difference to complete 100% (one hundred percent) of it; if not, the payment of the salary shall be borne by the Ministry of Education.' None of these norms refers to an absolute incapacity (incapacidad) or excludes from its application persons who enjoy a special leave (licencia especial). It is clear that this leave (licencia) is granted to employees who suffer from a minor or partial permanent incapacity and require a change of functions, according to the provisions of numeral 5 of the Reglamento de licencias especiales para los servidores del Ministerio de Educación Pública (Executive Decree No. 19113, effective as of July 28, 1989). In numeral 2 of that regulation, it is also stated that: 'The leaves (licencias) referred to in this regulation shall be granted to those employees who, due to the diminution suffered in their faculties or aptitudes, cannot perform, without detriment to their health or to the service, the functions and attributions corresponding to the position they had been performing as regular employees.' Now, regarding the remuneration that the beneficiaries of this type of leave (licencia) must receive, the special rule points out that they have the right to enjoy a subsidy equivalent to the totality of their salary, according to the provisions in this respect in the Estatuto de Servicio Civil and in the Código de Educación. Expressly, Article 17 of the Reglamento prescribes: 'The beneficiaries of the leaves (licencias) provided for in this regulation shall enjoy a subsidy equivalent to the totality of their salary in accordance with the provisions of the Estatuto de Servicio Civil and the Código de Educación on the matter' (the bold is not from the original). From the transcribed text, the clear reference to the norms of the cited Estatuto is noted, and therefore, the application of Article 174 is valid; because, as indicated, that norm does not make any exclusion of this type of incapacity (incapacidad)." Consequently, if at the time of the reassignment (special leave (licencia especial)), the plaintiff earned a bonus for alternate schedule (horario alterno), the right she has, according to that special regulation, is indisputable, that within her remuneration as an administrative official, that bonus be included, which, therefore, in her case, the granting is independent of the requirements that the employer entity may have for those services. That is, in application of that special provision, the defendant entity could not suppress from the subsidy of a salary nature granted to the plaintiff (subsection c, Article 174 thereof) the bonus for alternate schedule (horario alterno) that she received before being incapacitated. In addition to the above, it must be made clear that the current wording of numeral 174 does not give grounds to eliminate the bonuses, as could have been considered according to the wording of that norm before being modified by Law number 5659, of December 17, 1974, given that in its original version it indicated: "...If the incapacity (incapacidad) extends to the following school year, in the calculation corresponding to the new year, the additional sums for location allowance (zonaje), alternate schedule (horario alterno), or bonus for interim functions shall not be included." However, this phrase was eliminated with said reform, from which it can be deduced without any doubt that employees who have taken a leave (licencia) due to illness have the right to continue earning the alternate schedule (horario alterno) while that leave (licencia) lasts. This is the basis for which the court's decision to deny the plaintiff payment of the differences in alternate schedule (horario alterno) is illegitimate, despite it being proven that she received that bonus in her teaching work prior to the moment of taking the special leave (licencia especial).

Furthermore, numeral 12 states: 'Likewise, the Ministry of Public Education may make use of the human resources who are enjoying a special leave (licencia especial) for the attention of administrative, administrative-teaching, or technical tasks and functions in any of its units, when such services are required for the proper functioning of the institutions or to implement special programs.' Finally, Article 17 says: 'The beneficiaries of the leaves (licencias) provided for in this regulation shall enjoy a subsidy equivalent to the totality of their salary in accordance with the provisions of the Estatuto de Servicio Civil and the Código de Educación on the matter' (emphasis supplied). Thus, this regulation complements and does not contradict the provisions of numeral 174 of the Estatuto de Servicio Civil, which reads: 'a) If the employee, at the time of becoming incapacitated (incapacitarse) due to illness or maternity, was earning additional salary for location allowance (zonaje), for alternate schedule (horario alterno), or any bonus, they shall be entitled to a subsidy equivalent to the total salary that they were earning at that time. b) Leaves (licencias) due to illness, regardless of their duration, shall not interrupt the right that employees have to receive the corresponding salary increases. c) For all legal effects, both the subsidy and the aids referred to in Article 167 shall have the character of salary, and shall consequently be the basis for the calculation of pensions and legal benefits, among other aspects, that may correspond.' (The highlighted text is added). The regulatory norms develop this express provision, contemplating indiscriminately the right to compensation for the case of both permanent leave (licencia permanente) and special leave (licencia especial)." The argument that because the surcharge was not worked, it cannot be paid, is not acceptable, as this was due to the need to reassign the employee to functions different from teaching for health reasons. The regulation confers the right to continue receiving, in those circumstances, "a subsidy equivalent to the totality of their salary." Hence, it cannot be concluded, as is intended, that the nature of the surcharge was distorted or that public funds are unjustifiably affected, since the rules applicable to the case are those that generate these legal consequences. For the foregoing reasons, it is not true that Articles 15 of the Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública and 56 of the Ley contra el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública have been violated. The former refers to the possibility that the limit of forty weekly lessons may be exceeded when the service so requires, with the excess being maintained as a temporary surcharge. Such provision does not regulate the situation at hand here and is provided for the effective exercise of teaching functions, not for the cases of employees who enjoy incapacity (incapacidad) or leave (licencia). The other rule, for its part, could not have been violated, because it refers to the penalization for the granting of improper bonuses, which does not occur in this specific case. It is worth noting that the criteria of other judicial offices, labor or contentious-administrative, do not bind this Chamber. Consequently, the decision is not contrary to the position of the Constitutional Court to the effect that surcharges have a temporary nature and do not constitute an acquired right, given that the judgment does not refer to the situation of an active employee in functions that require or do not require the surcharge, but rather the issue is limited to determining the remuneration that an employee who has been unable to continue performing their normal duties, nor the surcharges they had been exercising, due to a health breakdown, must receive.

In pronouncement No. 1246-2016 from this Office, it was expressed: "This Chamber has been clear in indicating that, in reassignments for health reasons, the salary must be maintained as the plaintiff requests, because, having been reassigned for health reasons to administrative functions, one is in a situation assimilable to a partial incapacity (incapacidad parcial), since it is medically considered that if they continue teaching lessons, the employee's health would continue to deteriorate due to occupational risk, and therefore their reassignment is recommended. Thus, Article 174 of the Estatuto de Servicio Civil is applicable to these cases, a numeral that does not differentiate between special (especiales) and permanent (permanentes) leaves (licencias), or between leave (licencia) or incapacity (incapacidad) situations, all of which originate from disabling health reasons. In this manner, Article 174, in its subsection a), clearly mentions that if the employee is earning additional salary for items such as alternate schedule (horario alterno) or any other bonus at the time of becoming incapacitated (incapacitarse), they have the right to payment of a subsidy equivalent to the total salary they were earning at that time. Although in the case under review, there is no formally granted special leave (licencia especial), according to the respective Regulation, the truth is that in the same way, a situation of partial incapacity (incapacidad parcial) is presented in practice, by virtue of which, the reassignment contemplated in Article 22 bis of the Reglamento del Estatuto de Servicio Civil occurs. Therefore, the mentioned Article 174 applies in this case, since, in attention to the principles that protect workers' salaries, as well as taking into account the right of the teacher not to be harmed for health reasons that supervene beyond their will, they must be recognized payment of their salary, just as they had been receiving it before their reassignment, including the interim lessons they had as a surcharge." In accordance with what is indicated, the plaintiff, having been reassigned for health reasons, is deserving of the maintenance of the salary conditions she received at the time prior to the transfer, and it is not possible to validate, as the defendant party has intended - both in administrative and judicial venues - that such protection and benefit is in force solely and exclusively until the moment that the said labor-salary surcharge expired. It is not relevant whether the plaintiff has made requests for transfer between educational centers, or whether she has worked the alternate schedule (horario alterno) surcharge; what is important is that, for medical reasons, known to the employer, and which are referred to in the administrative and judicial files, the worker was reassigned, and therefore, it is appropriate to validate the first instance thesis and reject the claims of the state representation, not only because they are incorrect, but for attempting to limit a right repeatedly recognized by national labor jurisprudence. The judgment examined here does not suffer, then, from an improper assessment of the evidence, nor from an improper interpretation and application of numeral 174 of the Estatuto del Servicio Civil, nor did a violation of Article 15 of the Ley de Salarios and Article 56 of the Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito occur; rather, the substantive law was properly interpreted in the first instance judgment, the evidence was also correctly assessed - in light of the jurisprudence on the subject, not based on the unsubstantiated arguments of the Ministry of Public Education -, and if there were any illicit enrichment benefiting the plaintiff, it will be in the corresponding legal channel that the employer must exercise the corresponding actions, not here." It is worth emphasizing that this Chamber has also repeatedly stated: “<span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:sub">The grievance arguing that a distinction must be made between special licenses, permanent licenses, and sick leave or maternity leave, and the related argument that what was received were subsidies and not salaries, are also not admissible. This is because it is clear that all of them are based on an illness, and the aforementioned Article 174 literally states that in such a case, what is received has the nature of salary</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">” (emphasis added). (In the same vein, see judgments of this Chamber, numbers 2001-591; 2004-965; 2005-304; 2005-395; 2006-1102; 2006-1108; 2007-91; 2008-62; 2008-96; 2008-442; 2008-634; 2010-537 and 2010-1510). Given the manner in which the judges of the preceding instance resolved the matter and in the terms decided in this third instance on the main issue of the dispute (the recognition of the alternate schedule while she was reassigned), it is necessary to address some aspects of the appeal filed by the defendant party, which will be done in the following recitals (considerandos).</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:sub"> </span> That criterion was confirmed by judgment number 2017-001001, of eleven forty-five hours on July nineteenth, two thousand seventeen, which, in relevant part, stated:<span style="line-height:150%; font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">"</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">III.-</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">CASE ANALYSIS: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">There was no dispute that, when the plaintiff was reassigned to administrative duties for health reasons (based on Article 254 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo)), he was receiving a bonus for an overload of temporary (interinas) lessons.</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">Articles 118 of the Education Code (Código de Educación) and 13 of the Procedures Manual for Managing Teaching Personnel allow for the imposition of certain overloads on teachers. It is true that this type of supplemental salary (sobresueldos) does not constitute a vested right (derecho adquirido) and that payment must be suspended when the employee, in the exercise of their usual duties, ceases to meet the requirements demanded for its recognition. However, the present matter does not concern an employee who, in the normal exercise of their duties, is no longer in the circumstances that make the payment of the overload viable; rather, it concerns a person who, for health reasons, is prevented from continuing to perform their usual tasks. The appellant argues that numerals 167 and 174 of the Civil Service Statute (Estatuto del Servicio Civil) were improperly applied, given that said provisions presuppose the existence of a sick leave (incapacidad) or a special license, which did not occur in this matter, since there is only a reassignment for health reasons. In relation to this argument, it must be noted that the Chamber has resolved numerous matters similar to the present one, without any circumstance being evident in the sub lite (sublitem) that warrants changing criteria. It has been deemed that in cases of this type, Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) No. 19113 of July 28, 1989, called the Special Licenses Regulation for Employees of the Ministry of Public Education (Reglamento de Licencias Especiales para los Servidores del Ministerio de Educación Pública), is applicable (without it being possible to consider, as argued in the appeal, that this lost its basis upon the repeal of canon 167 of the Civil Service Statute, since this was not the only provision that served as its basis). The first precept of that regulation states that it provides for the rules and procedures that the cited Ministry must follow to grant licenses to employees, due to the diminution of their faculties or aptitudes for work, derived from a workplace risk or a common illness. The second article reaffirms that licenses shall be granted to those who suffer a diminution in their faculties and who, for that reason, cannot perform the duties and attributions of the position they had been holding. In accordance with the provisions of numerals 5 and 8, employees for whom the CCSS or the INS declares a permanent minor or partial disability and recommends a change of duties have the right to a special license. Now then, canon 9 stipulates that prior to the granting of the license, the Ministry shall proceed with the reassignment of the employee, which is ratified in the following provisions, according to which “this special license may be suspended, at the discretion of the Minister of Public Education, for the purpose of assigning tasks and duties compatible with their personal conditions, with the medical recommendations and the academic background of the beneficiary, which are required on a temporary basis” and that “the Ministry of Public Education may make use of the human resources who are enjoying a special license for the attention of tasks and duties of an administrative, administrative-teaching, or technical nature, in any of its dependencies, when such services are required for the proper functioning of the institutions or to implement special programs” —which is fully consistent with Article 254 of the Labor Code—. Subsequently, ordinal 17 states: “The beneficiaries of the licenses provided for in this regulation shall enjoy a subsidy equivalent to the entirety of their salary in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Statute and the Education Code on the matter”. It has been concluded that this regulation complements numeral 174 of the Civil Service Statute, which makes no distinction between permanent or partial disabilities (incapacidades); hence, no distinction should be made for payment purposes between permanent and special licenses. Consequently, if at the time of reassignment the plaintiff was earning a supplemental salary (sobresueldo) for temporary (interinas) lessons, their right, according to that special regulation, to have that bonus included within their remuneration as an administrative official is indisputable. In that line of thought, in judgment No. 308-2014 of this Chamber, it was explained: “In the defendant's opinion, the supplemental salaries known as alternate schedule and technical advisory committee are conceived only for those who perform teaching duties, when enrollment needs so require; and depending on the academic credentials of the official, for which reason the plaintiff is not entitled to the payment of those bonuses if her position is now of an administrative nature. However, it must be clear that in the instant case, we are not dealing with a claim made by an official in the administrative sector of the Ministry of Public Education for the recognition of bonuses as an integral and inseparable part of their salary. The situation under study differs from that assumption because here we are dealing with defining the entitlement of that right for a teaching official who, for health reasons, has had to be reassigned to an administrative position. The difference that the state representation seeks to assert between ‘sick leave’ (incapacidad) and ‘reassignment’ ignores that the origin of both is an illness of the official that prevents them from remaining in active teaching service. It is for this reason that the applicable regulations in cases like this are not only those related to the right to recognition of the alternate schedule, but especially those provided for that purpose. Firstly, the Special Licenses Regulation of the Ministry of Public Education (Executive Decree number 19113 of July 28, 1989), whose Article 1 mentions that this regulation aims to establish the rules and procedures that the Ministry of Public Education must follow to grant licenses to its employees, due to the diminution of their faculties or aptitudes for work, supervening from workplace risks or illness. For its part, numeral 2 establishes: ‘The </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">licenses</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> referred to in this regulation </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">shall be granted to those employees who, due to the diminution suffered in their faculties or aptitudes, cannot perform, without detriment to their health or the service, the duties and attributions corresponding to the position they had been holding as regular employees</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">’. (The highlighting is added). Subsequently, in accordance with Article 5, those employees for whom the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social) or the National Insurance Institute (Instituto Nacional de Seguros), in their final assessment, declare a permanent minor disability or a permanent or partial disability and recommend a change of duties, have the right to be granted a special license. Article 8 specifically addresses the scenario of granting the special license in the following terms: ‘In accordance with the provisions of Article 5 above, the Ministry of Public Education shall grant a special license to those employees who find themselves in the following circumstances: a) That according to their ailment, the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, in the final assessment of the treatment, recommends a change of duties. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">b) That in the final assessment of the effects of the workplace risk that occurred, the National Insurance Institute determines a permanent minor or partial disability and recommends their incorporation into the service with a change of duties</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">’ (emphasis added). Following that, Articles 9 and 10, in order, state: ‘Prior to the granting of the license and in accordance with the availability of positions and the requirements of the interested party, the Ministry of Public Education shall proceed with their reassignment, transfer, or promotion, as applicable’. And, ‘When the application of the provisions of the preceding article is immediately feasible, the special license shall be granted until the corresponding personnel movement can be carried out’. Furthermore, numeral 12 indicates: ‘Likewise, the Ministry of Public Education may make use of the human resources who are enjoying a special license for the attention of tasks and duties of an administrative, administrative-teaching, or technical nature, in any of its dependencies, when such services are required for the proper functioning of the institutions or to implement special programs’. Finally, Article 17 says: ‘The beneficiaries of the licenses provided for in this regulation </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">shall enjoy a subsidy equivalent to the entirety of their salary</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Statute and the Education Code on the matter’ (emphasis added). Thus, this regulation complements and does not contradict the provisions of numeral 174 of the Civil Service Statute, which reads: ‘a) If the employee, at the time of becoming disabled (incapacitarse) due to illness or maternity, was earning additional salary for location bonus, for </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">alternate schedule</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">,</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> or any supplemental salary (sobresueldo)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">, they shall be entitled to a subsidy equivalent to the total salary they were earning at that time. b) Sick leaves (licencias por enfermedad), whatever their duration, shall not interrupt the right of employees to receive the corresponding salary increases. c) For all legal purposes, both the subsidy and the aid referred to in Article 167 shall have the character of salary, and shall, consequently, be the basis for the calculation of pensions and legal benefits, among other matters, that may correspond.’ (The highlighting is added). The regulatory provisions develop this express disposition, indistinctly contemplating the right to compensation for both the case of permanent license and special license”. The argument that because the overload was not worked, it cannot be paid, is not admissible, as this was due to the need to reassign the employee to duties other than teaching, for health reasons. The regulation confers the right to continue receiving, in those circumstances, “a subsidy equivalent to the entirety of their salary”. Hence, it cannot be concluded, as is sought, that the nature of the overload was distorted or that public funds are unjustifiably affected, since the applicable rules to the case are those that generate these legal consequences. For the foregoing reasons, it is not true that Articles 15 of the Public Administration Salary Law (Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública) and 56 of the Law against Illicit Enrichment in Public Service (Ley contra el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública) have been violated. The first refers to the possibility of exceeding the limit of forty lessons per week when the service so requires, maintaining the excess as a temporary overload. Such provision does not regulate the situation at hand here and is intended for the effective exercise of teaching duties, not for cases of employees who are on sick leave (incapacidad) or license. The other provision, for its part, could not have been infringed, as it refers to the penalization for the granting of improper supplemental salaries (sobresueldos), which does not occur in the instant case.</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">It should be noted that the criteria of other judicial offices, labor or contentious-administrative, are not binding on this Chamber. Moreover, what has been decided is not opposed to the position of the Constitutional Court in the sense that overloads are temporary in nature and do not constitute a vested right (derecho adquirido), given that the trial does not refer to the situation of an active employee in functions that demand or not the overload, but rather the issue is limited to determining the remuneration that must be received by an employee who has been unable to continue performing their normal tasks or the overloads they were exercising, due to a health impairment.</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Verdana; font-size:6.67pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">In pronouncement No. 1246-2016 of this Office, it was stated: “This Chamber has been clear in indicating that, in reassignments for health reasons, the salary must be maintained as the plaintiff requests, since, having been reassigned for health reasons to administrative duties, one is in a situation comparable to a partial disability, since it is medically considered that if they continued teaching, the employee's health would continue to deteriorate due to occupational risk, and therefore their reassignment is recommended. Thus, Article 174 of the Civil Service Statute is applicable to these cases, a numeral that does not differentiate between special and permanent licenses, or between situations of licenses or sick leaves (incapacidades), all of which originate from disabling health reasons. In this way, Article 174, in its subsection a), clearly mentions that if the employee is earning additional salary for items such as alternate schedule or any other supplemental salary (sobresueldo) at the time of becoming disabled (incapacitarse), they have the right to payment of a subsidy equivalent to the total salary they were earning at that time. Although in the sub judice (subjúdice) there is no formally granted special license, according to the respective Regulation, the truth is that, in practice, a situation of partial disability exists by virtue of which the reassignment contemplated in Article 22 bis of the Regulation of the Civil Service Statute occurs. Therefore, the aforementioned Article 174 applies in this case, since, in consideration of the principles that protect workers' salaries, as well as taking into account the right of the teacher not to be prejudiced for health reasons that supervene beyond their control, the payment of their salary must be recognized, just as they were receiving it before their reassignment, including the temporary (interinas) lessons they had as an overload”.</span> In accordance with the foregoing, the plaintiff, having been reassigned for health reasons, is deserving of the maintenance of the salary conditions she received at the time prior to the transfer, without it being permissible to validate, as the defendant party has sought —both in administrative proceedings and in judicial proceedings— that such protection and benefit is valid solely and exclusively until the moment when the aforementioned labor-salary overload expired. It is irrelevant whether the plaintiff has made requests for mobilization between educational centers, or whether she has or has not worked the alternate schedule overload; what matters is that, for medical reasons, known to the employer, and which are referenced in the administrative file, and in the judicial file, the worker was reassigned, which means it is appropriate to validate the first-instance thesis and reject the claims of the state representation, not only because they are incorrect, but because they seek to limit a right repeatedly recognized by national labor case law (jurisprudencia). The judgment reviewed here does not suffer, then, from an improper assessment of the evidence, nor from an improper interpretation and application of numeral 174 of the Civil Service Statute, nor was there a violation of Article 15 of the Salary Law and Article 56 of the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment; rather, the substantive regulations were properly interpreted in the first-instance judgment, and the evidence was correctly assessed —in light of the case law on the subject, not based on the unfounded arguments of the Ministry of Public Education—, and if there were any illicit enrichment that benefits the plaintiff, it will be through the corresponding channels that the employer must exercise the corresponding actions, not here.”

” V.-Sobre el fondo del asunto: La accionante acudió a sede jurisdiccional a reclamar el pago del incentivo salarial por concepto de horario alterno que recibía de previo a su traslado a la Escuela La Finca 11, por razones de enfermedad. […] La tesis esbozada en primera instancia, en efecto, tiene sustento en la línea jurisprudencial sobre el tema desarrollada por la Sala Segunda de la Corte Suprema de Justicia.

Así, mediante resolución número 2014-000555, de las dieciséis horas del tres de junio de dos mil catorce, se dispuso, en lo que interesa: "II.- SOBRE EL FONDO DEL ASUNTO: Ninguna objeción existe a que, antes de ser reubicada en funciones administrativas en el Liceo Experimental Bilingüe Los Ángeles de la Dirección Regional de Educación de San Carlos (oficio DGP-1029-2006 del 6 de febrero de 2006, en página 32 del documento de fecha 08-08-2012 así como acciones de personal visibles en páginas 12 a 17 ídem y documental de folios 32 a 39 ídem. También, oficio DRH-PPRH-UL-7302-2012 del 21 de agosto de 2012 en documento de fecha 30-08-2012), la actora se desempeñaba en el puesto de Profesora de Enseñanza General Básica en la Escuela Tres Esquinas (oficio DGP-1029-2006 del 6 de febrero de 2006, en documento 32 del documento de fecha 08-08-2012 y oficio DRH-PPRH-UL-7302-2012 del 21 de agosto de 2012 en documento de fecha 30-08-2012). Esa reubicación se hizo efectiva a partir del 7 de febrero de 2006 (oficio DGP-1029-2006 del 6 de febrero de 2006, en documento 32 del documento de fecha 08-08-2012 y oficio DRH-PPRH-UL-7302-2012 del 21 de agosto de 2012 en documento de fecha 30-08-2012). Por otra parte, fue aceptado que en ese cargo de docente la actora devengaba un plus salarial por horario alterno, cuyo reconocimiento se le mantuvo incluso al 31 de enero de 2007 (oficio DRH-PPRH-UL-7302-2012 del 21 de agosto de 2012 en documento de fecha 30-08-2012 y acciones de personal de páginas 9 a 17 del documento de fecha 08-08-2012). En criterio del demandado, el sobresueldo conocido como horario alterno está concebido únicamente para quienes desempeñan funciones de docente, cuando las necesidades de matrícula lo requieran, por lo que a la actora no le asiste el derecho al pago de ese plus si su puesto es ahora, de naturaleza administrativa. Sin embargo, se debe tener claro que en la especie no se está frente al reclamo que hace un funcionario o funcionaria del sector administrativo del Ministerio de Educación Pública, para el reconocimiento de ese plus como parte integrante e indisoluble de su salario. La situación en estudio difiere de ese supuesto porque aquí se trata de definir la correspondencia de ese derecho a una funcionaria docente quien por razones de salud ha debido ser reubicada en un cargo administrativo. La diferencia que pretende hacer valer la representación estatal entre “incapacidad” y “reubicación” desconoce que el origen de ambas es una enfermedad del funcionario o la funcionaria que le impide mantenerse en el servicio activo de la docencia (véase que en el oficio DRH-PPRH-UL-11462-2009 del 15 de junio de 2009 se comunica a la actora prórroga de su reubicación laboral por salud, en la cual se recoge: “Reubicación según Carta al Patrono CP-1313-2005 de fecha 05 de setiembre del 2005, suscrita por la Dra. [Nombre1] , Jefatura Médica del Instituto Nacional de Seguros. Lo anterior con fundamento en el artículo 254 del Código de Trabajo en concordancia con el artículo 22 bis, inciso a) del Reglamento del Estatuto del Servicio Civil”, visible en página 36 del documento de fecha 08-08-2012. Véase también oficio DRH-10993-2010-DIR del 25 de octubre de 2010, en página 38 ídem). Es por esta razón que la normativa aplicable en casos como éste no es únicamente la relacionada con el derecho al reconocimiento de “horario alterno” sino la especialmente prevista al efecto. De primera mano, el Reglamento de Licencias Especiales Ministerio de Educación Pública (Decreto Ejecutivo número 19113 del 28 de julio de 1989), en su artículo 1° menciona que esta reglamentación tiene por objeto establecer las normas y los procedimientos que deberá seguir el Ministerio de Educación Pública para conceder licencia a sus servidores o servidoras, con motivo de la disminución de sus facultades o aptitudes para el trabajo, sobrevivientes de riesgos del trabajo o enfermedad. Por su parte, el numeral 2 establece: “Las licencias a que se refiere la presente reglamentación se concederán a aquellos servidores que, por la disminución sufrida en sus facultades o aptitudes, no pudieren desempeñar, sin detrimento de su salud o del servicio, las funciones y atribuciones correspondientes al cargo que venían desempeñando en calidad de servidores regulares”. Esa normativa distingue entre licencia permanente y licencia parcial, declarando que tienen derecho a esta última aquellos servidores o servidoras respecto de los cuales la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social o el Instituto Nacional de Seguros, en su valoración final, declaren una incapacidad menor permanente o una incapacidad parcial o permanente y recomienden un cambio de funciones. El artículo 8 trata específicamente el supuesto de la concesión de la licencia especial en los siguientes términos: “De conformidad con lo establecido en el artículo 5° anterior, el Ministerio de Educación Pública, concederá una licencia especial a aquellos servidores que encuentren en las siguientes circunstancias:/a) Que de acuerdo con su dolencia la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, recomiende en la valoración final del tratamiento su cambio de funciones./ b) Que en la valoración final de los efectos del riesgo de trabajo acaecido, el Instituto Nacional de Seguros, determine una incapacidad menor o parcial permanente y recomiende su incorporación al servicio con cambio de funciones” (énfasis suplido). El artículo 17 dice: “Los beneficiarios de las licencias previstas en esta reglamentación gozarán de un subsidio equivalente a la totalidad de su salario con arreglo a lo dispuesto por el Estatuto de Servicio Civil y el Código de Educación sobre la materia” (énfasis suplido). De modo que esta normativa complementa y no contradice lo dispuesto por el numeral 174 del Estatuto de Servicio Civil, que reza: “a) Si el servidor, en el momento de incapacitarse por enfermedad o maternidad, estuviese devengando salario adicional por zonaje, por ´horario alterno´, o cualquier sobresueldo, tendrá derecho a un subsidio equivalente al salario total que en dicho momento estuviese devengando./ b) Las licencias por enfermedad, cualquiera que sea su duración, no interrumpirán el derecho que tienen los servidores para recibir los aumentos de sueldos correspondientes./c) Para todos los efectos legales, tanto el subsidio, como los auxilios a que se refiere el artículo 167, tendrán el carácter de salario, y serán, en consecuencia, la base para el cálculo de pensiones y prestaciones legales, entre otros extremos, que pudieran corresponder”. La normativa reglamentaria desarrolla esta expresa disposición, contemplando de manera indistinta el derecho a la indemnización tanto para el caso de la licencia permanente como de la especial. Así lo ha resuelto esta Sala en ocasiones anteriores en las que se ha discutido este mismo tema. En la sentencia número 57 de 9:50 horas, del 21 de enero de 2011, se explicó: “IV.- …La representante del Estado insiste en que el numeral 174 del Estatuto de Servicio Civil no resulta aplicable a la actora, pues esa norma solo está prevista para las personas que se incapacitan de forma permanente y que su situación debe regirse por lo establecido en el artículo 166, según el cual, ´Cuando la licencia se conceda al maestro por razón de enfermedad debidamente comprobada, se girará a su favor y por un tiempo no mayor de 6 meses, la mitad del sueldo anterior al disfrute de la licencia. En casos excepcionales puede autorizarse una prórroga de este beneficio hasta por dos trimestres más, si el maestro enfermo demostrare su incapacidad para trabajar, con el testimonio de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social´. No obstante, la sala ha tenido la oportunidad de conocer asuntos iguales al presente y ha concluido que el citado artículo 174 no excluye al personal que disfruta de una licencia especial, por estar incapacitado de manera parcial. El numeral 166 citado no establece que su aplicación es dable solo para casos de licencias especiales. Por su parte, el artículo 174 tampoco excluye a los trabajadores incapacitados de manera parcial y que disfrutan de una licencia de ese tipo. Las normas no hacen distinción alguna entre licencias especiales y permanentes, aunado al hecho de que tampoco contemplan alguna diferenciación entre estas licencias y las incapacidades por enfermedad, aparte de que todas tienen como base, precisamente, la pérdida de la salud por una enfermedad incapacitante. Véase que el inciso a) de esta última norma señala que ´Si el servidor, en el momento de incapacitarse por enfermedad o maternidad, estuviese devengando salario adicional por zonaje, por horario alterno, o cualquier sobresueldo, tendrá derecho a un subsidio equivalente al salario total que en dicho momento estuviese devengando...´. Además, del numeral 173 ídem se desprende que la intención del legislador fue proteger la integridad del salario de las personas docentes durante el período de incapacidad. No otra cosa se deduce de lo indicado en el párrafo final del inciso a), según el cual, ´...cuando se comprobare que la incapacidad se extiende a un período mayor de los cuatro días, su salario no sufrirá deducción´, así como de lo estipulado en el inciso b, donde se apunta que ´si el servidor estuviese protegido por el Seguro Social, el Ministerio de Educación le reconocerá la diferencia de salarios hasta completar el 100% (ciento por ciento) del mismo; caso de no estarlo, el pago del salario correrá por cuenta del Ministerio de Educación´. Ninguna de esas normas hace referencia a una incapacidad absoluta o excluye de su aplicación a las personas que gozan de licencia especial. Está claro que esta licencia se otorga a las o los servidores que padecen una incapacidad menor o parcial permanentes y requieren un cambio de funciones, según lo que se establece en el numeral 5 del Reglamento de licencias especiales para los servidores del Ministerio de Educación Pública (Decreto Ejecutivo n° 19113, vigente a partir del 28 de julio de 1989). En el numeral 2 de esa normativa, también se establece que: ´Las licencias a que se refiere la presente reglamentación se concederán a aquellos servidores que, por la disminución sufrida en sus facultades o aptitudes, no pudieren desempeñar, sin detrimento de su salud o del servicio, las funciones y atribuciones correspondientes al cargo que venían desempeñando en calidad de servidores regulares´. Ahora bien, en cuanto a la remuneración que deben percibir las personas beneficiarias de este tipo de licencia, la normativa especial apunta que tienen derecho a gozar de un subsidio equivalente a la totalidad de su salario, según lo estipulado al respecto en el Estatuto de Servicio Civil y en el Código de Educación. En forma expresa, el artículo 17 del Reglamento preceptúa: ´Los beneficiarios de las licencias previstas en esta reglamentación gozarán de un subsidio equivalente a la totalidad de su salario con arreglo a lo dispuesto por el Estatuto de Servicio Civil y el Código de Educación sobre la materia´ (la negrita no es del original). De lo transcrito se advierte la clara remisión a las normas del citado Estatuto y, entonces, resulta válida la aplicación del artículo 174; por cuanto, como se indicó, en esa norma no se hace exclusión alguna de este tipo de incapacidades”. En consecuencia, si al momento de la reubicación (licencia especial) la actora devengaba un sobresueldo por horario alterno resulta indiscutible el derecho que tiene, conforme a esa normativa especial, a que dentro de su remuneración como funcionaria administrativa se le contemple ese plus, que por lo mismo, en su caso el otorgamiento resulta independiente a los requerimientos que de esos servicios tenga el ente empleador. Es decir, en aplicación de esa disposición especial, el ente demandado no podía suprimir del subsidio con naturaleza salarial concedido a la actora (inciso c, artículo 174 ídem) el plus por horario alterno que percibía antes de ser incapacitada. En adición a lo anterior, se debe dejar claro que la redacción actual del numeral 174 no da pie para eliminar los sobresueldos, como podía considerarse según la redacción de esa norma antes de ser modificada mediante ley número 5659, de 17 de diciembre de 1974, dado que en su versión original se indicaba que: “...Si la incapacidad se extendiere al siguiente curso lectivo, en el cálculo correspondiente al nuevo curso, no se incluirán las sumas adicionales por concepto de zonaje, horario alterno ni por sobresueldo de funciones interinas”. No obstante, esta frase fue eliminada con dicha reforma, de lo que se colige sin lugar a dudas, que los servidores o servidoras acogidos a una licencia por enfermedad tienen derecho a continuar devengando el horario alterno mientras dure esa licencia. Este es el fundamento por el cual resulta ilegítima la decisión del tribunal de negarle a la actora el pago de las diferencias en horario alterno, pese a que está acreditado que ella recibía ese sobresueldo en su labor de docente, previo al momento de acogerse a la licencia especial. Cabe recalcar que esta Sala, también en forma reiterada ha señalado: “El agravio según el cual debe hacerse la distinción entre las licencias especiales, las licencias permanentes y las incapacidades por enfermedad o maternidad y el relacionado con el tema de que lo que se percibió fue subsidios y no salarios tampoco son de recibo. Lo anterior por cuanto está claro que todas ellas tienen como base una enfermedad y el referido artículo 174 textualmente señala que en ese supuesto lo recibido tiene naturaleza salarial” (subrayado agregado). (En igual sentido pueden consultarse las sentencias de esta Sala, números 2001-591; 2004-965; 2005-304; 2005-395; 2006-1102; 2006-1108; 2007-91; 2008-62; 2008-96; 2008-442; 2008-634; 2010-537 y 2010-1510). Por la forma en que resolvieron los juzgadores de la instancia precedente y en los términos que se decide en esta tercera instancia sobre el tema principal de la litis (el reconocimiento del horario alterno mientras estuvo reubicada), se impone referirse a algunos aspectos del recurso de apelación formulado por la parte demandada, lo cual se hará en los siguientes considerandos." Ese criterio fue confirmado por sentencia número 2017-001001, de las once horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del diecinueve de julio de dos mil diecisiete, el cual en lo que interesa indicó: "III.- ANÁLISIS DEL CASO: No medió controversia en cuanto a que, cuando el actor fue reubicado en funciones administrativas por motivos de salud (con fundamento en el artículo 254 del Código de Trabajo), se encontraba percibiendo un plus por recargo de lecciones interinas. Los artículos 118 del Código de Educación y 13 del Manual de Procedimientos para Administrar el Personal Docente permiten imponer ciertos recargos a los docentes. Es verdad que esa clase de sobresueldos no constituyen un derecho adquirido y que debe suspenderse el pago cuando la persona servidora, en el ejercicio de sus funciones habituales, deja de cumplir los requisitos exigidos para su reconocimiento. No obstante, el presente asunto no versa sobre un servidor que, en el ejercicio normal de sus funciones, deja de estar en los supuestos que hacen viable el pago del recargo; sino de una persona que, por razones de salud, queda impedida para seguir ejecutando sus labores habituales. La impugnante manifiesta que se aplicaron indebidamente los numerales 167 y 174 del Estatuto del Servicio Civil, dado que dichas normas suponen la existencia de una incapacidad o una licencia especial, que en este asunto no se dieron, por cuanto solo existe una reubicación por razones de salud. En relación con ese planteamiento, ha de indicarse que la Sala ha resuelto numerosos asuntos similares al presente, sin que se advierta en el sublitem alguna circunstancia que amerite cambiar de criterio. Se ha estimado que en casos de este tipo resulta de aplicación el Decreto Ejecutivo n.° 19113 del 28 de julio de 1989, denominado Reglamento de Licencias Especiales para los Servidores del Ministerio de Educación Pública (sin que pueda considerarse, como se aduce en el recurso, que este quedó sin sustento al haberse derogado el canon 167 del Estatuto del Servicio Civil, pues no fue esta la única norma que le sirvió de sustento). En el primer precepto de esa reglamentación se señala que ahí se prevén las normas y procedimientos que debe seguir el citado Ministerio para conceder licencia a las personas servidoras, con motivo de la disminución de sus facultades o aptitudes para el trabajo, derivada de un riesgo del trabajo o de una enfermedad común. En el artículo segundo se reafirma que las licencias se concederán a quienes sufran una disminución en sus facultades y que por ello no puedan desempeñar las funciones y atribuciones del cargo que venían ejerciendo. De conformidad con lo preceptuado en los numerales 5 y 8, las personas servidoras a las que la CCSS o el INS les declaren una incapacidad menor o parcial permanente y recomienden un cambio de funciones, tienen derecho a una licencia especial. Ahora bien, el canon 9 estipula que de previo a la concesión de la licencia, el Ministerio procederá a la reubicación de la persona servidora, lo que se ratifica en las normas siguientes, según las cuales “esta licencia especial podrá ser suspendida, a juicio del Ministro de Educación Pública, a los efectos de asignar labores y funciones compatibles con sus condiciones personales, con las recomendaciones médicas y la formación académica del beneficiario, que con carácter temporal se requiera” y que “el Ministerio de Educación Pública podrá hacer uso del recurso humano que estuviere en disfrute de licencia especial para la atención de tareas y funciones de carácter administrativo, administrativo-docente o de carácter técnico, en cualquiera de sus dependencias, cuando tales servicios se requieran para la buena marcha de las instituciones o para implementar programas especiales” -lo cual guarda plena correspondencia con el artículo 254 del Código de Trabajo-. Luego, en el ordinal 17 se indica: “Los beneficiarios de las licencias previstas en este reglamentación gozarán de un subsidio equivalente a la totalidad de su salario con arreglo a lo dispuesto por el Estatuto de Servicio Civil y el Código de Educación sobre la materia”. Se ha concluido que esta normativa complementa el numeral 174 del Estatuto del Servicio Civil, el cual no hace diferencia entre incapacidades permanentes o parciales; de ahí que tampoco quepa realizar distinción para los efectos del pago entre las licencias permanentes y especiales. En consecuencia, si al momento de la reubicación el actor devengaba un sobresueldo por concepto de lecciones interinas, resulta indiscutible el derecho que tiene, conforme a esa normativa especial, a que dentro de su remuneración como funcionario administrativo se le incluya ese plus. En dicha línea de pensamiento, en la sentencia de esta Sala n.° 308-2014 se explicó: “En criterio del demandado, los sobresueldos conocidos como horario alterno y del comité técnico asesor, están concebidos únicamente para quienes desempeñan funciones de docente, cuando las necesidades de matrícula lo requieran; y dependiendo de los atestados académicos del funcionario o funcionaria, por lo que a la actora no le asiste el derecho al pago de esos pluses si su puesto es ahora, de naturaleza administrativa. Sin embargo, se debe tener claro que en la especie no se está frente al reclamo que hace un funcionario o funcionaria del sector administrativo del Ministerio de Educación Pública, para el reconocimiento de los pluses como parte integrante e indisoluble de su salario. La situación en estudio difiere de ese supuesto porque aquí se trata de definir la correspondencia de ese derecho a una funcionaria docente quien por razones de salud ha debido ser reubicada en un cargo administrativo. La diferencia que pretende hacer valer la representación estatal entre ´incapacidad´ y ´reubicación´ desconoce que el origen de ambas es una enfermedad del funcionario o la funcionaria que le impide mantenerse en el servicio activo de la docencia. Es por esta razón que la normativa aplicable en casos como este no es únicamente la relacionada con el derecho al reconocimiento de horario alterno, sino la especialmente prevista al efecto. De primera mano, el Reglamento de Licencias Especiales Ministerio de Educación Pública (Decreto Ejecutivo número 19113 del 28 de julio de 1989), cuyo artículo 1° menciona que esta reglamentación tiene por objeto establecer las normas y los procedimientos que deberá seguir el Ministerio de Educación Pública para conceder licencia a sus servidores o servidoras, con motivo de la disminución de sus facultades o aptitudes para el trabajo, sobrevinientes de riesgos del trabajo o enfermedad. Por su parte, el numeral 2 establece: ´Las licencias a que se refiere la presente reglamentación se concederán a aquellos servidores que, por la disminución sufrida en sus facultades o aptitudes, no pudieren desempeñar, sin detrimento de su salud o del servicio, las funciones y atribuciones correspondientes al cargo que venían desempeñando en calidad de servidores regulares´. (Lo resaltado es agregado). Luego, de conformidad con el artículo 5 tienen derecho a que se les conceda una licencia especial aquellos servidores y servidoras respecto de los cuales la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social o el Instituto Nacional de Seguros, en su valoración final, declaren una incapacidad menor permanente o una incapacidad parcial o permanente y recomienden un cambio de funciones. El artículo 8 trata específicamente el supuesto de la concesión de la licencia especial en los siguientes términos: ´De conformidad con lo establecido en el artículo 5° anterior, el Ministerio de Educación Pública, concederá una licencia especial a aquellos servidores que encuentren en las siguientes circunstancias: a) Que de acuerdo con su dolencia la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, recomiende en la valoración final del tratamiento su cambio de funciones. b) Que en la valoración final de los efectos del riesgo de trabajo acaecido, el Instituto Nacional de Seguros, determine una incapacidad menor o parcial permanente y recomiende su incorporación al servicio con cambio de funciones´ (énfasis suplido). Seguidamente los artículos 9 y 10, por su orden, establecen: ´De previo a la concesión de la licencia y de acuerdo con las disponibilidades de plazas y con los requisitos del interesado, el Ministerio de Educación Pública, procederá a su reubicación, traslado o ascenso, según corresponda´. Y, ´Cuando fuere viable, en forma inmediata, la aplicación de lo dispuesto en el artículo anterior se concederá la licencia especial hasta tanto se pueda realizar el movimiento de personal correspondiente´. Además, el numeral 12 señala: ´Igualmente el Ministerio de Educación Pública, podrá hacer uso del recurso humano que estuviere en disfrute de licencia especial para la atención de tareas y funciones de carácter administrativo, administrativo-docente o de carácter técnico, en cualquiera de sus dependencias cuando tales servicios se requieran para la buena marcha de las instituciones o para implementar programas especiales´. Finalmente, el artículo 17 dice: ´Los beneficiarios de las licencias previstas en esta reglamentación gozarán de un subsidio equivalente a la totalidad de su salario con arreglo a lo dispuesto por el Estatuto de Servicio Civil y el Código de Educación sobre la materia´ (énfasis suplido). De modo que esta normativa complementa y no contradice lo dispuesto por el numeral 174 del Estatuto de Servicio Civil, que reza: ´a) Si el servidor, en el momento de incapacitarse por enfermedad o maternidad, estuviese devengando salario adicional por zonaje, por horario alterno, o cualquier sobresueldo, tendrá derecho a un subsidio equivalente al salario total que en dicho momento estuviese devengando. b) Las licencias por enfermedad, cualquiera que sea su duración, no interrumpirán el derecho que tienen los servidores para recibir los aumentos de sueldos correspondientes. c) Para todos los efectos legales, tanto el subsidio, como los auxilios a que se refiere el artículo 167, tendrán el carácter de salario, y serán, en consecuencia, la base para el cálculo de pensiones y prestaciones legales, entre otros extremos, que pudieran corresponder.´ (Lo resaltado es agregado). La normativa reglamentaria desarrolla esta expresa disposición, contemplando de manera indistinta el derecho a la indemnización tanto para el caso de la licencia permanente como de la especial”. El argumento de que como el recargo no fue laborado no puede ser pagado no es de recibo, pues esto se debió a la necesidad de reubicar al servidor en funciones diferentes a las de docencia, por razones de salud. La normativa confiere el derecho a que se siga percibiendo, en esas circunstancias, “un subsidio equivalente a la totalidad de su salario”. De ahí que no pueda concluirse, como se pretende, que se desvirtuó la naturaleza del recargo o que se afectan los fondos públicos de manera injustificada, puesto que las normas aplicables al caso son las que generan esas consecuencias jurídicas. Por lo expuesto, no es cierto que se hayan violentado los artículos 15 de la Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública y 56 de la Ley contra el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública. El primero hace referencia a la posibilidad de que el límite de cuarenta lecciones semanales se sobrepase cuando el servicio así lo requiera, manteniéndose el exceso como un recargo de carácter temporal. Tal disposición no regula la situación que aquí se ventila y está prevista para el ejercicio efectivo de las funciones de docencia, no para los supuestos de personas servidoras que gocen de incapacidad o licencia. La otra norma, por su lado, no pudo resultar conculcada, pues se refiere a la penalización por el otorgamiento de sobresueldos improcedentes, lo cual no se da en la especie. Cabe acotar que los criterios de otros despachos judiciales, laborales o contencioso-administrativos, no vinculan a esta Sala. Luego, lo decidido no resulta contrapuesto a la posición del Tribunal Constitucional en el sentido de que los recargos tienen naturaleza temporal y no constituyen un derecho adquirido, dado que el juicio no se refiere a la situación de un servidor activo en funciones que demanden o no el recargo, sino que el tema se circunscribe a determinar la remuneración que debe percibir una persona servidora que no ha podido seguir efectuando sus labores normales ni los recargos que venía ejerciendo, en razón de un quebranto de salud. En el pronunciamiento n.° 1246-2016 de este Despacho se expresó: “Esta Sala ha sido clara al indicar que, en reubicaciones por motivos de salud, se debe mantener el salario como lo solicita el actor, por cuanto, al haber sido reubicado por motivos de salud en funciones administrativas, se está en una situación asimilable a una incapacidad parcial, ya que médicamente se considera que de continuar impartiendo lecciones, la salud del servidor continuaría en deterioro por riesgo laboral y por ello se recomienda su reubicación. Así, el artículo 174 del Estatuto de Servicio Civil resulta aplicable a estos casos, numeral que no hace la diferencia entre licencias especiales y permanentes, o entre situaciones de licencias o incapacidades, todas las cuales se originan en motivos de salud incapacitantes. De esta manera, el artículo 174, en su inciso a) menciona claramente que si el servidor está devengando salario adicional por rubros como el horario alterno o cualquier otro sobresueldo al momento de incapacitarse, tiene derecho al pago de un subsidio equivalente al salario total que en dicho momento estuviera devengando. Si bien en el subjúdice no existe una licencia especial formalmente otorgada, conforme al Reglamento respectivo, lo cierto es que de igual manera, en la práctica se presenta una situación de incapacidad parcial en virtud de la cual, se da la reubicación contemplada en el artículo 22 bis del Reglamento del Estatuto de Servicio Civil. Por ello, aplica en este caso el artículo 174 mencionado, ya que en atención a los principios que protegen el salario de los trabajadores, así como tomando en cuenta el derecho que asiste al docente de no verse perjudicado por motivos de salud que sobrevienen de manera ajena a la voluntad, debe reconocérsele el pago de su salario, tal y como lo venía percibiendo antes de su reubicación, incluyendo las lecciones interinas que tenía de recargo”.

Conforme lo indicado, la actora, al haber sido reubicada por razones de salud, es merecedora del mantenimiento de las condiciones salariales que percibía al momento previo al traslado, sin que sea dable validar, como lo ha pretendido la parte demandada -tanto en sede administrativa, cuanto en sede judicial-, que tal protección y beneficio, tiene vigencia única y exclusivamente hasta el momento en que vencía el mencionado recargo laboral-salarial. No tiene relevancia si la actora ha realizado solicitudes de movilización entre centros educativos, o si ha laborado o no el recargo de horario alterno, lo importante es que, por razones médicas, conocidas por la parte patronal, y a las que se hace referencia en el expediente administrativo, y en el judicial, la trabajadora fue reubicada, por lo que procede es validar la tesis de primera instancia y rechazar los reclamos de la representación estatal, no solo por incorrectos, sino por pretender limitar un derecho reconocido reiteradamente por la jurisprudencia laboral nacional. No sufre la sentencia acá conocida entonces de una indebida valoración de la prueba, ni de una indebida interpretación y aplicación del numeral 174 del Estatuto del Servicio Civil, ni se dio una violación del artículo 15 de la Ley de Salarios y del artículo 56 de la Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito; sino que más bien, la normativa de fondo se interpretó adecuadamente en la sentencia de primera instancia, igualmente la prueba fue valorada correctamente -a la luz de la jurisprudencia sobre el tema, no con base en los argumentos sin sustento del Ministerio de Educación Pública-, y si hubiera algún enriquecimiento ilícito que beneficie a la actora, será en la vía correspondiente que la parte patronal deberá ejercer las acciones correspondientes, no acá.”