Teacher relocation for health: salary supplements and alternate hoursReubicación docente por salud: sobresueldos y horario alterno

III.CASE ANALYSIS. It has been demonstrated that the plaintiff serves as a General Basic Education teacher, without a specialty, at the Bijuagal Sur (Sabanillas) School, of the Regional Directorate of Aguirre, and was reassigned for health reasons to the San Andrés School (see official communication DGP-18408-2005 dated September 20, 2005, visible in image 293 of the electronic court file downloaded in PDF format). This act established an effective period from October 1, 2005, to January 31, 2006. In addition to the foregoing, it was accredited that before her reassignment, the plaintiff enjoyed a temporary supplemental pay for alternate schedule (recargo temporal de horario alterno) of 50% of the base salary, effective from February 1, 2005, to January 31, 2006, which was extended to July 31, 2007 (personnel action no. 2951091, image 137 of the administrative file provided in digital format), but was discontinued upon its expiration due to the change in her duties (see the proven facts of the first-instance judgment, endorsed by the Tribunal). Note that in official communication DRH-PPRH-UL-5362-2008 dated December 9, 2008, the Administration ordered the following: “[…] I inform you that through official communication DAJ-2848-2008 dated November 18 of this year, signed by Lic. Berny Solano Solano, Director of the Directorate of Legal Affairs, the final paragraph literally states: ‘In conclusion, employees who are reassigned for health reasons shall be paid their salary plus the salary supplements (pluses salariales) they had at the time of reassignment, which will expire with the school year…’. For the aforementioned reason, you cannot be recognized through the ordinary procedure the supplemental pay (recargo) corresponding to the Alternate Schedule that was recognized to you in 2006, given that its expiration date was January 31, 2007, and after that date, the additional pay in question is not owed to you according to the criterion issued by the Directorate of Legal Affairs of this Ministry” (image 136 of the administrative file provided in digital format). It should be noted that the plaintiff’s reassignment was agreed upon following a medical recommendation, based on Article 254 of the Labor Code, which establishes the employer’s obligation to reinstate to their position individuals who have suffered a workplace hazard (riesgo) and can work (official communication DGP-18408-2005 dated September 20, 2005). Furthermore, it provides for the employer’s duty to offer a different position according to its possibilities, when, based on a medical recommendation, the employee cannot return to perform the duties they were previously carrying out but is capable of performing other tasks. It should be pointed out that Articles 118 of the Education Code and 13 of the Manual de Procedimientos para Administrar el Personal Docente precisely establish the possibility of granting certain supplemental pays (recargos). Also, it is true that the related additional pays do not constitute an acquired right and that their payment must be suspended when the employee, in the exercise of their usual duties, ceases to meet the requirements demanded for their recognition, which the Administration must actively oversee, periodically requiring the employee to demonstrate that the physical conditions that motivated the reassignment have not changed. It should be mentioned that the present matter does not concern the case of an employee who, in the normal exercise of her duties, ceases to fall under the assumptions that make the supplemental pay viable, but rather a person who, for health reasons, is prevented from continuing to perform her ordinary duties. Therefore, the decision rendered is not in violation of Articles 118 and 13, idem. The appellant argues that Section 174 of the Civil Service Statute was improperly applied, because the plaintiff was reassigned from teaching duties to administrative duties, not placed on leave (incapacitada) due to illness or maternity. With respect to this argument, this Chamber has heard and decided repeated matters of identical characteristics, without perceiving any circumstance that would warrant a change in the sustained criterion. It has been held that in cases of this nature, Executive Decree No. 19113 of July 28, 1989, which is the Reglamento Licencias Especiales Servidores del Ministerio de Educación Pública, is applicable, and it cannot be considered, as has been argued in some matters, that this regulation was left without support upon the repeal of canon 167 of the Civil Service Statute, since that was not the only norm that gave it support. In the first canon of that regulation, it is established that it sets forth the rules and procedures that said Ministry must follow to grant leave (licencia) to employees, due to the diminution of their faculties or aptitudes for work, arising from a workplace hazard or an illness. Article 2 reaffirms that the leaves contemplated by the regulation will 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 were carrying out. In accordance with what is regulated in Sections 5 and 8, employees for whom the Caja or the INS declare a permanent minor disability or partial permanent disability (incapacidad menor o parcial permanente) and recommend a change of duties are entitled to a special leave (licencia especial). That said, canon 9 stipulates that prior to granting the leave, the Ministry shall proceed with the reassignment (reubicación) 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 background of the beneficiary, which 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 to attend to administrative, administrative-teaching, or technical tasks and duties, in any of its dependencies when such services are required for the good order of the institutions or to implement special programs,” which corresponds to Article 254 of the Labor Code. Next, canon 17 expressly stipulates that “The beneficiaries of the leaves provided for in this regulation shall enjoy a subsidy equal to the entirety of their salary in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Statute and the Education Code on the matter.” In that 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 plaintiff was earning the additional pay for extended schedule (sobresueldo por horario ampliado), her right under that special regulation to have that supplement (plus) considered within her remuneration as a teaching employee reassigned to administrative duties is indisputable. In ruling number 308 of this Chamber, issued at 10:30 a.m. on March 26, 2014, the following was explained: “In the opinion of the defendant, the additional pays known as alternate schedule and technical advisory committee are conceived solely for those who perform teaching duties, when enrollment needs so require; and depending on the academic credentials of the employee, and thus the plaintiff is not entitled 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 faced with a claim made by an employee from the administrative sector of the Ministry of Public Education for the recognition of supplements as an integral and inseparable part of their salary. The situation under study differs from that assumption because here it is a matter of defining the entitlement to that right for a teaching employee who, for health reasons, has had to be reassigned to an administrative position. The difference that the state representation seeks to assert between 'disability' and 'reassignment' ignores that the origin of both is an illness of the employee that prevents them from remaining in active teaching service. It is for this reason that the applicable regulatory framework in cases such as this is not solely that related to the right to recognition of the alternate schedule, but the one specifically provided for this purpose. First and foremost, the Reglamento de Licencias Especiales Ministerio de Educación Pública (Executive Decree No. 19113 of July 28, 1989), whose Article 1° states 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, arising from workplace hazards or illness. For its part, Section 2 establishes: 'The leaves 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 the service, the duties and attributions corresponding to the position they were carrying out as regular employees.' (Highlighting is added). Then, in accordance with Article 5, those employees with respect to whom the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social or the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, in their final assessment, declare a permanent minor 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 assumption of granting the special leave in the following terms: 'In accordance with the provisions of the preceding Article 5°, 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 Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social recommends in the final treatment assessment a change of duties. b) That in the final assessment of the effects of the workplace hazard that occurred, the Instituto Nacional de Seguros determines a partial or minor permanent disability and recommends their reincorporation into service with a change of duties' (emphasis supplied). Next, Articles 9 and 10, in order, establish: 'Prior to granting the leave 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 (reubicación), transfer, or promotion, as appropriate.' And, 'When the application of the provisions of the preceding article is immediately viable, the special leave shall be granted until the corresponding personnel movement can be carried out.' Furthermore, Section 12 states: 'Equally, the Ministry of Public Education may make use of the human resource who is enjoying special leave to attend to administrative, administrative-teaching, or technical tasks and duties, in any of its dependencies when such services are required for the good order of the institutions or to implement special programs.' Finally, Article 17 says: 'The beneficiaries of the leaves provided for in this regulation shall enjoy a subsidy equal 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 regulatory framework complements and does not contradict the provisions of Section 174 of the Civil Service Statute, which reads: 'a) If the employee, at the time of being placed on leave due to illness or maternity, was earning additional salary for zonaje, for alternate schedule, or any other additional pay, they shall be entitled to a subsidy equivalent to the total salary they were earning at that moment. b) Leaves due to illness, regardless of 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 aid referred to in Article 167 shall have the character of salary, and shall therefore be the basis for calculating pensions and legal benefits, among other items that may apply.' (Highlighting is added). The regulatory framework develops this express provision, indistinctly contemplating the right to the indemnity for both the case of permanent leave and special leave.” (The emphases appear in the original). In this way, the regulatory framework contemplates the right to continue receiving the supplemental pay for lessons (recargo de lecciones), in those circumstances, “a subsidy equal to the entirety of their salary.” Now, it is not true that Articles 15 of the Public Administration Salary Law or 56 of the Law against Illicit Enrichment in Public Office have been violated. The former refers to the possibility of exceeding the limit of forty weekly lessons when the service so requires, with the excess maintained as a supplemental pay, of a temporary nature. This provision does not regulate the situation raised here and is provided for the effective exercise of teaching duties, not for cases of employees who are prescribed a disability or leave. The other norm could not have been violated as it refers to the penalization for the granting of improper additional pays, which is not the assumption under discussion.

III.ANALYSIS OF THE CASE. It has been demonstrated that the plaintiff serves as a Basic General Education teacher, without a specialty, at the Bijuagal Sur (Sabanillas) School, of the Regional Directorate of Aguirre, having been reassigned for health reasons to the San Andrés School (see official communication DGP-18408-2005 dated September 20, 2005, visible in image 293 of the court’s electronic case file downloaded in PDF format). This act established an effective period from October 1, 2005, to January 31, 2006. In addition to the foregoing, it was accredited that before her reassignment, the plaintiff enjoyed a temporary alternate-schedule overload (recargo temporal de horario alterno) of 50% of the base salary, effective from February 1, 2005, until January 31, 2006, which was extended until July 31, 2007 (personnel action no. 2951091, image 137 of the administrative file provided in digital format), but was discontinued upon its expiration due to the change in her duties (see the proven facts of the first-instance judgment endorsed by the Tribunal). Note that in official communication DRH-PPRH-UL-5362-2008 dated December 9, 2008, the Administration ordered the following: “[…] I inform you that by official communication DAJ-2848-2008 dated November 18 of the current year, signed by Mr. Berny Solano Solano, Director of the Directorate of Legal Affairs, the final paragraph textually states the following: ‘In conclusion, employees reassigned for health reasons shall be paid their salary plus the salary supplements (pluses salariales) they held at the time of reassignment, which shall expire with the school year…’. Due to the foregoing, you cannot be recognized through the ordinary route the overload corresponding to the Alternate Schedule that was recognized to you in 2006, given that it had an expiration date of January 31, 2007, and after that date, the additional salary (sobresueldo) in question does not correspond to you according to the criterion issued by the Directorate of Legal Affairs of this Ministry” (image 136 of the administrative file provided in digital format). It is worth mentioning that the plaintiff’s reassignment was agreed upon in response to a medical recommendation, based on Article 254 of the Código de Trabajo (Labor Code), which establishes the employer’s obligation to reinstate to their position persons who have suffered a risk and can work (official communication DGP-18408-2005 dated September 20, 2005). Furthermore, it provides for the employer’s duty to offer a different position in accordance with its possibilities, when, by medical recommendation, the employee cannot return to perform the functions they had been carrying out, but is able to perform other tasks. It should be noted that Article 118 of the Código de Educación (Education Code) and Article 13 of the Manual de Procedimientos para Administrar el Personal Docente (Manual of Procedures for Administering Teaching Personnel) precisely establish the possibility of agreeing to certain overloads. It is also true that the related additional salaries do not constitute a vested right and that their payment must be suspended when the employee, in the exercise of their usual functions, ceases to meet the requirements demanded for their recognition, which the Administration must actively oversee, periodically requiring the employee to demonstrate that the physical conditions that motivated the reassignment have not changed. It should be noted that the present matter does not concern the case of an employee who, in the normal exercise of her functions, ceases to be in the circumstances that make the overload viable, but rather a person who, for health reasons, is prevented from continuing to perform her ordinary duties. Therefore, the decision does not violate Articles 118 and 13, ibid. The appellant maintains that numeral 174 of the Estatuto del Servicio Civil (Civil Service Statute) was improperly applied, since the plaintiff was reassigned from teaching functions to administrative functions, not incapacitated due to illness or maternity. In relation to that argument, the Chamber has heard and decided repeated matters of identical characteristics, without noticing any circumstance that would make it possible to vary the sustained criterion. It has been considered that in cases of this nature, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 19113, of July 28, 1989, which is the Reglamento Licencias Especiales Servidores del Ministerio de Educación Pública (Regulation on Special Licenses for Employees of the Ministry of Public Education), is applicable, without it being possible to consider, as has been alleged in some matters, that this regulation was left without support when canon 167 of the Estatuto del Servicio Civil was repealed, since that was not the only norm that gave it support. Canon one of that regulation establishes that it sets forth the norms and procedures that the cited Ministry must follow to grant a license to employees, on the occasion of a diminishment of their faculties or aptitudes for work, derived from a work-related risk or an illness. Article two reaffirms that the licenses contemplated by the regulation shall be granted to those who suffer a diminishment in their faculties and who, for that reason, cannot perform the functions and attributions of the position they had been holding. In accordance with the provisions of numerals 5 and 8, employees for whom the Caja [Costarricense de Seguro Social] or the INS [Instituto Nacional de Seguros] declares a minor or partial permanent disability and recommends a change of functions have a right to a special license. Now then, canon 9 stipulates that prior to granting the license, the Ministry shall proceed to the reassignment (reubicación) of the employee, which is ratified in the following norms, 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 functions compatible with their personal conditions, with the medical recommendations, and with the beneficiary’s academic training, that are temporarily required” and that “[…] the Ministry of Public Education may make use of the human resource that is enjoying a special license for attending 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 corresponds to Article 254 of the Código de Trabajo. Subsequently, canon 17 expressly stipulates that “Beneficiaries of the licenses 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.” In this way, it has been considered that this regulation rather complements Article 174 of the Estatuto del Servicio Civil, which makes no distinction between permanent or partial disabilities, and hence no differentiation may be made for payment purposes between permanent and special licenses. Consequently, if at the time of her reassignment the plaintiff was earning the additional salary for extended hours, the right she has, in accordance with that special regulation, to have that supplement included within her remuneration as a teaching employee reassigned to administrative functions is indisputable. In judgment of this Chamber number 308, of 10:30 a.m. on March 26, 2014, the following was explained: “In the defendant’s view, the additional salaries known as alternate schedule and technical advisory committee are conceived solely for those who perform teaching duties, when enrollment needs require it; and depending on the academic credentials of the employee, so the plaintiff does not have the right to the payment of those supplements if her position is now of an administrative nature. However, it must be clear that in this case, we are not faced with the claim made by an employee of the administrative sector of the Ministry of Public Education for the recognition of the supplements as an integral and inseparable part of their salary. The situation under study differs from that scenario because here it is a matter of defining the correspondence of that right to a teaching employee 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’ and ‘reassignment’ ignores the fact that the origin of both is an illness of the employee that prevents them from remaining in active teaching service. It is for this reason that the applicable regulations in cases such as this are not exclusively those related to the right to the recognition of an alternate schedule, but rather those specially provided for this purpose. First and foremost, the Reglamento de Licencias Especiales Ministerio de Educación Pública (Decreto Ejecutivo number 19113 of July 28, 1989), whose Article 1 mentions that this regulation is intended to establish the norms and procedures that the Ministry of Public Education must follow to grant a license to its employees, on the occasion of the diminishment of their faculties or aptitudes for work, arising from work-related risks or illness. For its part, numeral 2 establishes: ‘The licenses referred to in this regulation shall be granted to those employees who, due to the diminishment 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 performing as regular employees.’ (The highlighting is added). Then, in accordance with Article 5, those employees for 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 license. Article 8 specifically deals with the scenario of granting a special license in the following terms: ‘In accordance with the provisions of the preceding Article 5, 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 Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, in the final assessment of treatment, recommends their change of functions. b) That, in the final assessment of the effects of the work-related risk that occurred, the Instituto Nacional de Seguros determines a minor or partial permanent disability and recommends their incorporation into the service with a change of functions’ (emphasis supplied). Next, Articles 9 and 10, in their order, establish: ‘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 to their reassignment, transfer, or promotion, as applicable.’ And, ‘When the application of the provision in the preceding article is not immediately viable, the special license shall be granted until the corresponding personnel movement can be carried out.’ Additionally, numeral 12 states: ‘Likewise, the Ministry of Public Education may make use of the human resource that is enjoying a special license for attending 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.’ Finally, Article 17 states: ‘The beneficiaries of the licenses 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 provision of numeral 174 of the Estatuto de Servicio Civil, which reads: ‘a) If the employee, at the time of being incapacitated due to illness or maternity, was earning additional salary for zona pay (zonaje), for alternate schedule, or any other additional salary, they shall have the right to a subsidy equivalent to the total salary they were earning at that time. b) Leaves due to illness, whatever their duration, shall not interrupt the right that employees have 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 be, consequently, the basis for calculating pensions and legal benefits, among other items, that may apply.’ (The highlighting is added). The regulatory norm develops this express provision, indistinctly contemplating the right to compensation for both the case of permanent leave and special leave.” (The highlights appear in the original). In this way, the regulations contemplate the right to continue receiving the overload for lessons, in those circumstances, “a subsidy equivalent to the totality of their salary.” Now, it is not true that Articles 15 of the Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública (Law on Salaries of the Public Administration) or 56 of the Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública (Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in the Public Service) have been violated. The first refers to the possibility of exceeding the limit of forty lessons per week when the service so requires, with the excess being maintained as an overload, of a temporary nature. That provision does not regulate the situation raised here and is provided for the effective performance of teaching functions, not for the cases of employees who are prescribed a disability leave or license. The other norm could not have been violated since it refers to the penalization for granting improper additional salaries, which is not the scenario under discussion."

"III. ANÁLISIS DEL CASO. Ha sido demostrado que la actora funge como profesora de Enseñanza General Básica, sin especialidad, en la Escuela Bijuagal Sur (Sabanillas), de la Dirección Regional de Aguirre, siendo reubicada por motivos de salud en la Escuela San Andrés (puede observarse el oficio DGP-18408-2005 de fecha 20 de setiembre de 2005 visible en la imagen 293 del expediente electrónico del Juzgado descargado en formato PDF). Este acto establecía un rige del 1 de octubre de 2005 al 31 de enero de 2006. Aunado a lo anterior, fue acreditado que antes de su reubicación la actora gozaba de un recargo temporal de horario alterno de un 50% del salario base, a partir del 1 de febrero de 2005 y hasta el 31 de enero de 2006, el cual fue prorrogado hasta el 31 de julio de 2007 (acción de personal n.°2951091 imagen 137 expediente administrativo aportado en formato digital), pero fue desaplicado con su vencimiento debido a la variación de sus labores (ver hechos probados sentencia de primera instancia avalados por el Tribunal). Nótese que en el oficio DRH-PPRH-UL-5362-2008 de fecha 9 de diciembre de 2008, la Administración dispuso lo siguiente: “[…] Le indico que mediante oficio DAJ-2848-2008 de fecha 18 de noviembre del corriente, suscrito por el Lic. Berny Solano Solano, Director de la Dirección de Asuntos Jurídicos, en el párrafo último textualmente se indica lo siguiente: “En conclusión a los funcionarios que se reubique por salud se les cancelará su salario más los pluses salariales que tengan al momento de ser reubicados los cuales fenecerán con el curso lectivo…”. Por lo anterior señalado es que a usted no se le podrá reconocer por la vía ordinaria el recargo correspondiente al Horario Alterno que se le reconoció en el 2006, dado que el mismo tenía como fecha de vence el 31 de enero de 2007, y posterior a esa fecha no le corresponde el sobresueldo en cuestión según el criterio emanado por la Dirección de Asuntos Jurídicos de este Ministerio” (imagen 136 expediente administrativo aportado en formato digital). Cabe mencionar que la reubicación de la accionante, 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 (oficio DGP-18408-2005 de fecha 20 de setiembre de 2005). 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. Debe señalarse que los artículos 118 del Código de Educación y 13 del Manual de Procedimientos para Administrar el Personal Docente, precisamente establecen la posibilidad de acordar ciertos recargos. También, es verdad que los sobresueldos relacionados no constituyen un derecho adquirido y que debe suspenderse su pago cuando la persona servidora, en el ejercicio de sus funciones habituales, deja de cumplir los requisitos exigidos para su reconocimiento, lo cual deberá tutelar activamente la Administración, exigiéndole periódicamente al funcionario demostrar que las condiciones físicas que motivaron la reubicación no han variado. Cabe mencionar que, el presente asunto no versa sobre el caso de una servidora 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 ordinarias. Por ello, lo decidido no resulta violatorio de los artículos 118 y 13 ídem. El recurrente sostiene que se aplicó indebidamente el numeral 174 del Estatuto del Servicio Civil, por cuanto la promovente fue reubicada de funciones docentes a funciones administrativas, no incapacitada por enfermedad o maternidad. En relación con ese planteamiento, la Sala ha conocido y resuelto reiterados asuntos de iguales características, sin que advierta alguna circunstancia que haga posible variar el criterio sostenido. 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 ha alegado en algunos asuntos, 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 dio sustento. En el canon 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 de trabajo o de una enfermedad. En el artículo 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 numerales 5 y 8, las personas servidoras a las que la Caja 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 que corresponde con el artículo 254 del Código de Trabajo. Luego, en el canon 17 se estipula, 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 la actora devengaba el sobresueldo por horario ampliado, resulta indiscutible el derecho que tiene conforme a esa normativa especial, a que dentro de su remuneración como funcionaria docente reubicada en funciones administrativas se le contemple ese plus. En la sentencia de esta Sala número 308, de las 10:30 horas del 26 de marzo de 2014, se explicó cuanto sigue: “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).De este modo, la normativa contempla el derecho a que se siga percibiendo el recargo de lecciones, en esas circunstancias, “un subsidio equivalente a la totalidad de su salario”. Ahora, no es cierto que se hayan violentado los artículos 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 a las que se les prescriba una 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."