Right to supplemental pay for teacher reassigned for health reasonsDerecho al sobresueldo de docente reubicado por razones de salud

“III.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE: it has been duly accredited that, in January 2013, the plaintiff was earning the alternate schedule bonus (sobresueldo por horario alterno) and that, due to health problems, in February of that same year he was reassigned to administrative functions; reason for which that bonus ceased to be paid to him. It is clear, then, that the reassignment was agreed upon in response to a medical recommendation, based on Article 254 of the Labor Code, which establishes the obligation of the employer to reinstate to their position persons who have suffered a risk and can work. Furthermore, it provides for the employer's duty to provide a different position according to its possibilities, when by medical recommendation the person cannot return to perform the functions they were carrying out, but is capable of performing other tasks. In the case under analysis, the appellant maintains that the Public Administration is subject to the principle of legality; therefore, it can only proceed in accordance with what is duly authorized in the legal system, which is correct (provisions 11 of the Political Constitution and 11 and 13 of the General Law of Public Administration). Ordinals 118 of the Education Code and 13 of the Manual of Procedures for Managing Teaching Personnel precisely stipulate the possibility of agreeing to certain bonuses. It is also true that the related bonuses do not constitute a vested right (derecho adquirido) and that their payment must be suspended when the employee, in the exercise of their usual functions, ceases to be in the conditions established for their recognition. However, the present matter does not concern an employee who, in the normal exercise of their functions, ceases to be in the circumstances that make the bonus viable, but rather a person who for health reasons is prevented from continuing to carry out their normal work. It is not observed, then, that what was decided violates the cited Articles 118 and 13. The State representation maintains that provisions 167 and 174 of the Civil Service Statute were applied improperly, because those norms presuppose the existence of a disability or a special leave (licencia especial), which in this matter did not occur, since there is only a reassignment for health reasons. In relation to that argument, it must be indicated that this Chamber has heard and resolved repeated matters of the same characteristics, without perceiving any circumstance that makes it possible to vary the sustained criterion. Just as was explained in the preceding instance, it has been considered that in cases of this nature, Executive Decree number 19113, of July 28, 1989, which is the Special Leaves Regulation for Employees of the Ministry of Public Education, is applicable, and it cannot be considered, as is alleged, that this was left without support upon the repeal of ordinal 167 of the Civil Service Statute, since this was not the only rule that gave it support. In the first article of that regulation it is established that it provides the norms 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 risk or an illness. The second provision reaffirms that the leaves contemplated by the regulation will be granted to those who suffer a diminution in their faculties and for that reason cannot perform the functions and attributions of the position they had been performing. Pursuant to what is regulated in ordinals 5 and 8, employees to whom the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social or the Instituto Nacional de Seguros declare a minor or partial permanent disability and recommend a change of functions have the right to a special leave. Now then, Article 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 norms, according to which “…this special leave may be suspended, at the discretion of the Minister of Public Education, for the purpose of assigning work and functions compatible with their personal conditions, with the medical recommendations and the academic background of the beneficiary, that are temporarily required” and that “…the Ministry of Public Education may make use of the human resource that is on special leave for the attention of tasks and functions of an administrative, administrative-teaching, or technical nature, in any of its dependencies when such services are required for the smooth operation of the institutions or to implement special programs”, the foregoing is in absolute correspondence with provision 254 of the Labor Code. Then, in ordinal 17 it is established, expressly, that “The beneficiaries of the leaves provided for in this regulation will 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”. In this way, it has been considered that this regulation rather complements Article 174 of the Civil Service Statute, which makes no distinction whatsoever between permanent or partial disabilities and hence, no differentiation should be made for payment purposes between permanent and special leaves. Consequently, if at the time of reassignment the worker was earning the alternate schedule bonus, the right he has, according to that special regulation, to have that plus included within his remuneration as an administrative official is indisputable. In that sense, in judgment number 308 of this Chamber, at 10:30 hours on March 26, 2014, it was explained: “In the opinion of the defendant, the bonuses known as alternate schedule and technical advisory committee 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 has no right to the payment of those pluses if her position is now administrative in nature. However, it must be clear that in the species we are not facing a claim made by an official of the administrative sector of the Ministry of Public Education for the recognition of the pluses as an integral and indissoluble part of their salary. The situation under study differs from that supposition because here it is a matter of defining the correspondence of that right to a teaching official who for health reasons has had to be reassigned to an administrative position. The difference that the State representation attempts to assert between ‘disability’ and ‘reassignment’ disregards that the origin of both is an illness of the official that prevents them from remaining in the active teaching service. It is for this reason that the applicable regulation in cases such as this is not only that related to the right to the recognition of alternate schedule, but that specially provided for the purpose. First-hand, the Special Leaves Regulation Ministry of Public Education (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 employees, due to a diminution of their faculties or aptitudes for work, arising from work risks or illness. For its part, provision 2 establishes: ‘The leaves referred to in this regulation will be granted to those employees who, due to the diminution 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 were performing as regular employees’. (Emphasis added). Then, pursuant to Article 5, those employees regarding whom the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social or the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, in their final assessment, declare a minor permanent disability or a partial or permanent disability and recommend a change of functions have the right to be granted a special leave. Article 8 specifically deals with the supposition of the granting of the special leave in the following terms: ‘Pursuant to the provisions of Article 5° above, the Ministry of Public Education will grant a special leave 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 treatment assessment, a change of functions. b) That in the final assessment of the effects of the work risk that occurred, the Instituto Nacional de Seguros determines a minor or partial permanent disability and recommends their incorporation to the 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 with the requirements of the interested party, the Ministry of Public Education will proceed with their reassignment, transfer, or promotion, as applicable’. And, ‘When the application of the provisions of the previous article is immediately viable, the special leave will be granted until the corresponding personnel movement can be carried out’. Furthermore, provision 12 states: ‘Likewise, the Ministry of Public Education may make use of the human resource that is on special leave for the attention of tasks and functions of an administrative, administrative-teaching, or technical nature, in any of its dependencies when such services are required for the smooth operation of the institutions or to implement special programs’. Finally, Article 17 says: ‘The beneficiaries of the leaves provided for in this regulation will 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). Thus, this regulation complements and does not contradict what is provided by provision 174 of the Civil Service Statute, which reads: ‘a) If the employee, at the time of becoming disabled due to illness or maternity, is earning additional salary for hardship allowance (zonaje), for alternate schedule, or any bonus, they will have the right to a subsidy equivalent to the total salary that they were earning at that time. b) Leaves due to illness, regardless of their duration, will not interrupt the right that employees have to receive the corresponding salary increases. c) For all legal purposes, both the subsidy and the aids referred to in Article 167 will have the character of salary, and will consequently be the basis for the calculation of pensions and legal benefits, among other aspects, that may correspond.’ (Emphasis added). The regulatory norm develops this express provision, indistinctly contemplating the right to compensation for both the case of permanent leave and the special one”. (The emphases appear in the original). The appellant is also not correct when she argues that the bonus was not worked, because this was due to the need to reassign the employee to functions different from teaching, for health reasons. The regulation contemplates the right to continue receiving, in these circumstances, “a subsidy equivalent to the totality of their salary”. Hence, it cannot be concluded, as is intended, that the nature of the bonus was distorted or that public funds are unjustifiably affected, since the rules applicable to the case are those that establish these legal consequences. For the foregoing, it is also not true that provisions 15 of the Public Administration Salaries Law or 56 of the Law against Unlawful Enrichment in the Public Function have been violated. The first refers to the possibility of exceeding the limit of forty weekly lessons when the service so requires, the excess being maintained as a bonus, of a temporary nature. This provision does not regulate the situation that is raised here and is intended for the effective exercise of teaching functions, not for the cases of employees who enjoy disability or leave. The other rule could not have been violated, as it refers to the penalization for the granting of improper bonuses, which is not the supposition under discussion. Finally, it is worth noting that the criteria of the Legal Advisory Office of the Ministry of Public Education or the decisions of other jurisdictional bodies on the matter are not binding on this Chamber. Then, what was decided is not opposed to the criterion of the Constitutional Chamber in the sense that bonuses are temporary in nature and do not constitute a vested right, given that the case does not refer to the situation of an active employee in functions that do or do not demand the bonus, but rather the issue is reduced to establishing the remuneration that an employee who has not been able to continue performing their normal work nor the bonuses they were carrying out, due to a condition, must receive.” **III.— REGARDING THE SPECIFIC CASE:** it has been duly proven that, in January 2013, the plaintiff was earning the alternate schedule supplemental pay (sobresueldo por horario alterno) and that, due to health problems, in February of that same year he was reassigned to administrative duties; for which reason that surcharge (recargo) ceased to be paid to him. It is clear, then, that the reassignment was agreed upon in response to a medical recommendation, based on Article 254 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo), which establishes the obligation of the employer to restore to their position persons who have suffered a workplace hazard (riesgo) and can work. Furthermore, it provides for the employer's duty to offer them a different position according to their possibilities, when by medical recommendation they cannot return to perform the duties they had been carrying out, but are capable of performing other tasks. In the case under analysis, the appellant maintains that the Public Administration is subject to the principle of legality; therefore, it may only proceed in accordance with what is duly authorized in the legal system, which is correct (articles 11 of the Political Constitution and 11 and 13 of the General Law of Public Administration). Articles 118 of the Education Code (Código de Educación) and 13 of the Procedures Manual for Managing Teaching Staff precisely stipulate the possibility of agreeing to certain surcharges (recargos). It is also true that the related supplemental payments (sobresueldos) do not constitute a vested right (derecho adquirido) and that their payment must be suspended when the employee, in the exercise of their usual duties, ceases to be in the conditions established for their recognition. However, the present matter does not concern an employee who, in the normal exercise of their duties, ceases to meet the requirements that make the surcharge (recargo) viable, but rather a person who, for health reasons, is prevented from continuing to perform their normal work. It is therefore not apparent that the decision rendered violates the cited Articles 118 and 13. The State's representation maintains that articles 167 and 174 of the Civil Service Statute (Estatuto del Servicio Civil) were applied improperly, inasmuch as those provisions presuppose the existence of a disability (incapacidad) or a special leave (licencia especial), which did not occur in this matter, since there is only a reassignment for health reasons. In relation to that argument, it must be noted that this Chamber has heard and resolved numerous matters of identical characteristics, without noting any circumstance that makes it possible to change the held criterion. As was explained in the preceding instance, it has been considered that in cases of this nature, Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) number 19113, of July 28, 1989, which is the Regulation on Special Leaves for Employees of the Ministry of Public Education (Reglamento Licencias Especiales Servidores del Ministerio de Educación Pública), is applicable, without it being possible to consider, as is alleged, that this regulation was left without support due to the repeal of article 167 of the Civil Service Statute (Estatuto del Servicio Civil), since this was not the only provision that supported it. Article one of that regulation establishes that the rules and procedures that the cited Ministry must follow to grant leave (licencia) to its employees, by reason of the diminishment of their faculties or aptitudes for work, derived from a workplace hazard (riesgo del trabajo) or an illness, are set forth therein. Article two reaffirms that the leaves (licencias) contemplated in the regulation shall be granted to those who suffer a diminishment 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 articles 5 and 8, employees for whom the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social) or the National Insurance Institute (Instituto Nacional de Seguros) declare a minor or partial permanent disability (incapacidad menor o parcial permanente) and recommend a change of duties, are entitled to a special leave (licencia especial). Now, Article 9 stipulates that prior to the granting of the leave (licencia), the Ministry shall proceed with the reassignment of the employee, which is ratified in the following provisions, according to which “…this special leave (licencia especial) may be suspended, at the discretion of the Minister of Public Education, for the purposes of assigning tasks and duties compatible with their personal conditions, with the medical recommendations, and with the academic background 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 is enjoying special leave (licencia especial) for the handling of tasks and duties of an administrative, administrative-teaching, or technical nature, in any of its offices when such services are required for the proper functioning of the institutions or to implement special programs”; the foregoing corresponds absolutely with article 254 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo). Then, Article 17 expressly establishes that “The beneficiaries of the leaves (licencias) 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 (Estatuto de Servicio Civil) and the Education Code (Código de Educación) on the matter.” Thus, it has been considered that this regulation rather complements Article 174 of the Civil Service Statute (Estatuto del Servicio Civil), which makes no distinction whatsoever between permanent or partial disabilities (incapacidades permanentes o parciales), and hence it is also not proper to make a distinction, for payment purposes, between permanent and special leaves (licencias permanentes y especiales). Consequently, if at the time of reassignment the worker was earning the alternate schedule supplemental pay (sobresueldo por horario alterno), the right he has, pursuant to that special regulation, to have that plus (plus) included within his remuneration as an administrative official is indisputable. In that sense, in judgment number 308 of this Chamber, at 10:30 hours on March 26, 2014, it was explained: “In the opinion of the defendant, the supplemental payments (sobresueldos) known as alternate schedule (horario alterno) and technical advisory committee (comité técnico asesor) are conceived solely 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 pluses (pluses) if her position is now of an administrative nature. However, it must be clear that in the instant case we are not facing a claim made by an official of the administrative sector of the Ministry of Public Education for the recognition of pluses (pluses) as an integral and indissoluble part of her salary. The situation under study differs from that assumption because here it is a matter of defining the correspondence of that right to a teaching official who, for health reasons, has had to be reassigned to an administrative position. The difference that the State's representation seeks to assert between ‘disability (incapacidad)’ and ‘reassignment (reubicación)’ ignores that the origin of both is an illness of the official that prevents 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 the alternate schedule (horario alterno), but those specially provided for the purpose. First and foremost, the Regulation on Special Leaves for the 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's purpose is to establish the rules and procedures that the Ministry of Public Education must follow to grant leave (licencia) to its employees, due to the diminishment of their faculties or aptitudes for work, arising from workplace hazards (riesgos del trabajo) or illness. For its part, Article 2 establishes: ‘The leaves (licencias) referred to in this regulation shall be granted to those employees who, due to the diminishment suffered in their faculties or aptitudes, cannot perform, without detriment to their health or to the service, the duties and attributions corresponding to the position they had been holding as regular employees.’ (The highlighting is added). Then, 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 evaluation, declare a minor permanent disability (incapacidad menor permanente) or a partial or permanent disability (incapacidad parcial o permanente) and recommend a change of duties, have the right to be granted a special leave (licencia especial). Article 8 specifically addresses the case of granting the 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 employees who find themselves in the following circumstances: a) That according to their ailment, the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social) recommends, in the final treatment evaluation, their change of duties. b) That in the final evaluation of the effects of the workplace hazard (riesgo de trabajo) that occurred, the National Insurance Institute (Instituto Nacional de Seguros) determines a minor or partial permanent disability (incapacidad menor o parcial permanente) and recommends their return to service with a change of duties’ (emphasis supplied). Subsequently, Articles 9 and 10, in order, establish: ‘Prior to the granting of the leave (licencia), and in accordance with the availability of positions and the qualifications of the interested party, the Ministry of Public Education shall proceed with their reassignment, transfer, or promotion, as appropriate.’ And, ‘When the application of the provisions of the preceding article is feasible in an immediate manner, the special leave (licencia especial) shall be granted until the corresponding personnel movement can be carried out.’ Furthermore, Article 12 states: ‘Likewise, the Ministry of Public Education may make use of the human resource who is enjoying special leave (licencia especial) for the handling of tasks and duties of an administrative, administrative-teaching, or technical nature, in any of its offices 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 entirety of their salary in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Statute (Estatuto de Servicio Civil) and the Education Code (Código de Educación) on the matter’ (emphasis supplied). Thus, this regulation complements and does not contradict the provisions of Article 174 of the Civil Service Statute (Estatuto de Servicio Civil), which reads: ‘a) If the employee, at the time of becoming disabled due to illness or maternity, was earning additional salary for zonage (zonaje), for alternate schedule (horario alterno), or any supplemental payment (sobresueldo), they shall be entitled to a subsidy equivalent to the total salary they were earning at that time. b) Leaves for illness (licencias por enfermedad), whatever their duration, shall not interrupt the right employees have to receive the corresponding salary increases. c) For all legal purposes, both the subsidy and the aids referred to in Article 167 shall have the character of salary, and shall consequently be the basis for calculating pensions and legal benefits, among other matters, that may correspond.’ (The highlighting is added). The regulatory provisions develop this express provision, indistinctly contemplating the right to compensation both for the case of permanent leave (licencia permanente) and special leave (licencia especial).” (The highlights appear in the original). Nor is the appellant correct in arguing that the surcharge (recargo) was not worked, since this was due to the need to reassign the employee to duties other than teaching, for health reasons. The regulations provide for 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 supplemental payment (sobresueldo) was distorted or that public funds are unjustifiably affected, since the provisions applicable to the case are those that establish these legal consequences. For the foregoing reasons, it is also not true that articles 15 of the Public Administration Salary Law (Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública) or 56 of the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Service (Ley contra el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública) have been violated. The first refers to the possibility that the limit of forty weekly lessons may be exceeded when the service so requires, the excess being maintained as a surcharge (recargo) of a temporary nature. Such provision does not regulate the situation raised here and is provided for the effective exercise of teaching duties, not for cases of employees who enjoy disability leave (incapacidad) or leave (licencia). The other provision could not have been violated, as it refers to the penalization for granting improper supplemental payments (sobresueldos), which is not the situation under discussion. Finally, it should be noted that the criteria of the Legal Advisory Office of the Ministry of Public Education (Asesoría Jurídica del Ministerio de Educación Pública) and the decisions of other jurisdictional bodies on this matter are not binding on this Chamber. Furthermore, the decision rendered is not contrary to the criterion of the Constitutional Court (Tribunal Constitucional) in the sense that supplemental payments (sobresueldos) are temporary in nature and do not constitute a vested right (derecho adquirido), given that the case does not refer to the situation of an active employee in duties that may or may not require the surcharge (recargo), but rather the issue is limited to establishing the remuneration that an employee who has been unable to continue performing their normal duties or the surcharges (recargos) they had been exercising, due to an ailment, should receive.”

“III.- SOBRE EL CASO CONCRETO: ha quedado debidamente acreditado que, en enero de 2013, el actor devengaba el sobresueldo por horario alterno y que, debido a problemas de salud, en febrero de ese mismo año fue reubicado en funciones administrativas; razón por la cual aquél recargo se le dejó de pagar. Está claro, entonces, que la reubicación se acordó ante una recomendación médica, basada en el artículo 254 del Código de Trabajo, que establece la obligación de la parte empleadora de reponer en su puesto a las personas que hayan sufrido un riesgo y puedan trabajar. Además, prevé el deber patronal de proporcionarle un puesto diferente de acuerdo con sus posibilidades, cuando por recomendación médica no pueda regresar a ejercer las funciones que venía desempeñando, pero sí esté en capacidad de realizar otras tareas. En el caso bajo análisis, la parte recurrente sostiene que la Administración Pública está sujeta al principio de legalidad; por lo cual solo puede proceder conforme a lo que esté debidamente autorizado en el ordenamiento jurídico, lo cual es acertado (numerales 11 de la Constitución Política y 11 y 13 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública). Los ordinales 118 del Código de Educación y 13 del Manual de Procedimientos para Administrar el Personal Docente precisamente estipulan la posibilidad de acordar ciertos recargos. También es verdad que los sobresueldos relacionados no constituyen un derecho adquirido y que debe suspenders e su pago cuando la persona servidora, en el ejercicio de sus funciones habituales, deja d e estar en las condiciones establecidas 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 recargo, sino de una persona que por razones de salud queda impedida para seguir ejecutando sus labores normales. No se advierte entonces que lo decidido resulte violatorio de los artículos 118 y 13 citados. La representación estatal sostiene que los numerales 167 y 174 del Estatuto del Servicio Civil se aplicaron indebidamente, por cuanto dichas normas suponen la existencia de una incapacidad o una licencia especi al, que en este asunto no se dieron, por cuanto solo existe una reubicación por razones de salud. En relación con ese planteamiento, debe indicarse que la Sala ha conocido y resuelto reiterados asuntos de iguales características, sin que advierta alguna circunstancia que haga posible variar el criterio sostenido. Tal y como quedó explicado en la instancia precedente, se ha estimado que en casos de esta naturaleza resulta de aplicación el Decreto Ejecutivo número 19113, del 28 de julio de 1989, que es el Reglamento Licencias Especiales Servidores del Ministerio de Educación Pública, sin que pueda considerarse, como se alega, que este quedó sin sustento al haberse derogado el ordinal 167 del Estatuto del Servicio Civil, pues no fue esta la única norma que le dio sustento. En el artículo primero de esa reglamentación se establece 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. En el numeral segundo se reafirma que las licencias que la reglamentación contempla 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 desempeñando. De conformidad con lo regulado en los ordinales 5 y 8, las personas servidoras a las que la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social o el Instituto Nacional de Seguros les declaren una incapacidad menor o parcial permanente y recomienden un cambio de funciones tienen derecho a una licencia especial. Ahora bien, el artículo 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 anterior guarda absoluta correspondencia con el numeral 254 del Código de Trabajo. Luego, en el ordinal 17 se establece, de manera expresa, que “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”. De esa manera, se ha considerado que esta normativa más bien complementa el artículo 174 del Estatuto del Servicio Civil, el cual no hace diferencia alguna entre incapacidades permanentes o parciales y de ahí que tampoco quepa realizar diferenciación para los efectos del pago entre las licencias permanentes y especiales. En consecuencia, si al momento de la reubicación el trabajador devengaba el sobresueldo por horario alterno, resulta indiscutible el derecho que tiene, conforme a esa normativa especial, a que dentro de su remuneración como funcionario administrativo se le contemple ese plus. En ese sentido, en la sentencia de esta Sala número 308, de las 10:30 horas del 26 de marzo de 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”. (Los destacados constan en el original). Tampoco lleva razón la recurrente en cuanto aduce que el recargo no fue laborado, pues esto se debió a la necesidad de reubicar al servidor en funciones diferentes a las de docencia, por razones de salud. La normativa contempla 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 sobresueldo o que se afectan los fondos públicos de manera injustificada, puesto que las normas aplicables al caso son las que establecen esas consecuencias jurídicas. Por lo expuesto, tampoco es cierto que se hayan violentado los numerales 15 de la Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública ni el 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 exceda cuando el servicio así lo requiera, manteniéndose el exceso como un recargo, de carácter temporal. Tal disposición no regula la situación que aquí se plantea y está prevista para el ejercicio efectivo de las funciones de docencia, no para los casos de personas servidoras que gocen de incapacidad o licencia. La otra norma no pudo resultar violada, pues se refiere a la penalización por el otorgamiento de sobresueldos improcedentes, lo cual no es el supuesto que se discute. Por último, cabe señalar que los criterios de la Asesoría Jurídica del Ministerio de Educación Pública ni las decisiones de otros órganos jurisdiccionales sobre el particular resultan vinculantes para esta Sala. Luego, lo decidido no resulta contrapuesto al criterio del Tribunal Constitucional en el sentido de que los sobresueldos tienen naturaleza temporal y no constituyen un derecho adquirido, dado que el caso no se refiere a la situación de un servidor activo en funciones que demanden o no el recargo, sino que el tema se reduce a establecer 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 padecimiento.”