Recognition of Accumulated Seniority in the Public Sector for Annual IncreasesReconocimiento de antigüedad acumulada en el sector público para anualidades

I.- Regarding the first ground alleged by the appellant, namely that Decreto Número 18181 of June 14, 1988, must be applied to the case under review, on the basis that it does not contravene subsection d) of Article 12 of the Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública, this Chamber has repeatedly ruled on the matter, to the effect that a decree cannot modify a law by establishing requirements not provided for therein, and, given that the aforementioned Decree establishes requirements not provided for in Ley 6835 of December 22, 1982, for the payment of annual increments (anualidades), it becomes illegal and, therefore, insofar as it contravenes what is provided in the law, it cannot be applied in the judicial forum. This Tribunal has upheld the thesis that, by express mandate of Article 8, subsection 2), of the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 18181-H, of June 14, 1988, which regulates the payment of owed annual increments, is inapplicable because it establishes a series of limitations that the regulated law does not establish (Resolutions No. 149, at 9:30 a.m. on September 20, 1989, and No. 160, at 2:40 p.m. on October 24, 1990). Regarding the second ground of disagreement raised, namely that the legislator did not intend to recognize in an unrestricted manner the time served in other public entities, but rather the seniority increases (aumentos por antigüedad) that those servants effectively received in the entity of origin, in order to prevent them from suffering economic detriment merely by "changing employer," within the public sector, by losing the increases they had effectively received in the service of the Public Administration. This tribunal has expressed its opinion on this subject on repeated occasions. In this regard, in resolution No. 136 at 9:20 a.m. on September 14, 1990, it was stated: "... This Chamber already stated, in its resolution No. 77 at 9:40 a.m. on June 8, 1990, that neither the Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública, analyzed in its entirety, nor Article 12, subsection d), thereof (added by Ley N° 6835, of December 22, 1982), provide that the recognition of seniority accumulated in the Public Sector, for purposes of annual increases, only proceeds when the transfer of the servant from one entity to another occurs and to the extent that the increases in question had already been recognized in the entity of origin. On the contrary, judicial and administrative jurisprudence have endorsed the recognition of seniority accumulated in the service of the Public Administration, without questioning whether or not that time was recognized in the Institution of origin, because the objective the Legislator had in mind when introducing the referred subsection d) to Article 12, through Ley N° 6835, was solely to remedy the injustice committed against public servants who moved from one entity to another, within the Public Administration, and were not given recognition for their time of service rendered. It should be noted that, without a doubt, the Chamber's interpretation aligns with Article 2 of this Ley N° 6835, which literally reads: "Article 2. A subsection d) is added to Article 12 of the Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública, number 2166 of October 9, 1957, which shall read: 'd) Public Sector servants, whether tenured or interim, shall be recognized, for the purposes of the annual increases referred to in Article 5 above, the time of services rendered in other Public Sector entities. This provision is not retroactive in nature. This law does not negatively affect the right established in collective bargaining agreements (convenciones colectivas) and agreements, in matters of salary negotiation'." From the study of the Bill (at the initiative of the Executive Branch, as inferred from its publication in La Gaceta), nor from the text of the current norm, can it be deduced that there is any need for the annual increases to have been previously recognized in the entity of origin; hence, to think so would mean assuming the existence of a condition not provided for by the Law and, consequently, lacks basis. On the other hand, one could not embrace an interpretation that applies, to the contrary, the rule of Article 17 of the Código de Trabajo, known as "in dubio pro operario". Furthermore, regarding the basis for annual increases, it is worth transcribing the reference to the author Guillermo Cabanellas, made in the opinion of the Procuraduría General de la República, C-124-85, of June 17, 1985: "Then, regarding labor law doctrine, we consider it of interest to mention one of the few authors who have addressed the subject under study, the master Guillermo Cabanellas, who, when analyzing seniority increases, tells us: 'The origin of seniority bonuses (premios por antigüedad) is probably found in the benefit that the Public Administration grants to its dependent officials, to compensate them for permanence and constancy in the work; thus establishing an increase in remuneration for certain periods elapsed, whether in the same category, in the same body, or in the service of the State, accumulating the tasks performed in other public offices' ([Nombre1], . 'Contrato de Trabajo', Bibliográfica Omeba, Buenos Aires. 1963. Vol. II, p. 522). Also, when properly analyzing the rationale or justification for said increases, the cited scholar indicates that the recognition of seniority bonuses: 'Constitutes a system by which the worker is compensated for the years he has provided his services to the company. Esteeming it perhaps a deferred salary, the system seeks to keep the worker tied to the same employer for as long as possible. Since the work contract is of indefinite duration that the worker can terminate at any moment, and it is in the employer's interest for this worker to continue providing his services for as long as possible, seniority bonuses are established. With the increase derived from the number of years of services rendered, it is in the employer's interest, as a producer, for his staff to remain in their employment because of the benefits of the knowledge and specialization acquired; since by changing workers in his service, he needs to repeat the teachings and regain confidence in the capacity and conduct of his subordinates' ([Nombre1], . Ob. cit., p. 521). As opinion C-194-83 of June 17, 1983, further indicates well: '... for the purposes of annual increases, the time served in the Public Sector must be recognized, even when there has been an interruption in service. This is so because what is sought to be compensated with the annual increase is the dedication of the public servant to the service of the administration and the experience obtained therein, independently of the continuous or interrupted nature of the service relationship'. It is therefore clear, with the legal analysis carried out and with the doctrinal reinforcement transcribed, that it is not necessary, for the purposes of applying that subsection d), of Article 12 of the Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública, added by Ley N° 6835 of December 22, 1982, that in the Institution from which the servant originates, he had effectively earned the annual increases due to seniority." The argument put forward by the appellant, that only the contingencies established in subsection c) of Article 12 of the Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública do not interrupt the one-year period required for the salary increase, is not admissible, since such a thing cannot be deduced from the text of the referenced norm. Subsection c) of the indicated numeral states: "Vacations, justified illness, temporary performance of another public post, even if excluded from the Civil Service Regime, leave without pay to undertake studies in international organizations of which Costa Rica is a member, and licenses for training or studies pertinent to the official's own function or in a related discipline, in which they would return to work due to proven national necessity, do not interrupt the one-year period required for the salary increase." From reading the cited norm, it is concluded that the legislator intended that, should the circumstances contemplated therein occur, the computation of one year required for the salary increase is not suspended; in no way does it indicate that in all other cases, the worker loses all seniority accumulated in the service of the Public Administration; interpreting it otherwise would mean disregarding the in dubio pro-operario principle that governs labor law. Further to this, opinion C-194-83 of June 17, 1983, already cited in the preceding recital (considerando), establishes that for the purposes of annual increases, the time served in the Public Sector must be recognized, even when there has been an interruption in service; which is explained by the fact that what is sought to be compensated with the annual increase is the servant's dedication to the service of the public administration and the experience obtained therein, independently of the continuous or interrupted nature of the service relationship. It is indicated in the appeal that the time worked by the plaintiff for the State, for which she claims recognition of annual increments, has special regulations, namely Article 12 of Ley 6963 of July 30, 1984, and numeral 7 of Ley 6966 of September 25, 1984. This Chamber has repeatedly indicated that "... the recognition of seniority in the public sector, for the purposes of paying annual increases for services rendered in any of its institutions, whether or not they are covered by statutory regimes, is grounded in Articles 4 and 12, subsection d), of the Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública, reformed by Ley N° 6835, of December 22, 1982. Through the first norm, a new salary scale was established, at the end of which it was expressly stated that 'The previous scale shall apply to the entire Public Sector...' . The second provision established: 'Public Sector servants, whether tenured or interim, shall be recognized, for the purposes of the increases referred to in Article 5, above, the time of services rendered in other Public Sector entities. This provision is not retroactive in nature. This law does not negatively affect the right established in collective bargaining agreements (convenciones colectivas) and agreements, in matters of salary negotiation' . As has been understood, these provisions represent a culmination of the application within the Public Administration of the theory of the 'State as SOLE EMPLOYER' (del Estado PATRONO UNICO), whose practical application seeks a very clear purpose, which is to correct the injustice suffered by people who transferred to work from one institution to another, within that same Sector, without the right, due to the formal distinction made, to enjoy the benefits generally derived from seniority (antigüedad) in the provision of service with an employer, thereby preventing discriminations that clash with Labor Law. As is known, the application of this thesis has been occurring progressively, first for certain purposes such as vacations, retirement and pensions, severance pay, annual increases, and was embodied in the aforementioned Ley 6835, for the purposes indicated therein, whose application, despite the modifications being made to the Ley General de Salarios de la Administración Pública, which was enacted in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Statute regarding Executive Branch salaries, must be general, because, besides fulfilling its purpose within that specific context, the spirit of the norm is clear in establishing mechanisms to treat all public sector servants equally in that field, which cannot be ignored, not only due to the express wording of the norms, but because, as stated, they are but part of the evolution of ideas on the subject that have been forged for some time. If the legislator had wanted to give the reform a specific or particular application for the classes of positions classified in the Civil Service Descriptive Manual, taking into account the provisions of Article 1 of said Ley General de Salarios, other statements would not have been made, so, since they were made, expressing that it shall apply '... to the entire Public Sector...' and safeguarding the acquired rights through collective bargaining agreements that may have occurred in some areas of that Sector (whose practice leads to conceiving it already as general), what must necessarily be concluded is what the Chamber deduced, i.e., extensive application. Among others, Resolutions of this same Chamber may be consulted, No. 58 at 2:30 p.m. on April 30, 1986, and No. 82, at 10:10 a.m. on July 5, 1989 (the latter includes important jurisprudential background)." (Ruling Number 181 at 10:10 a.m. on October 2, 1991). Based on the foregoing, if the plaintiff worked for the Ministry of Public Security, for the period from November 1, 1979, to May 16, 1982, and taking into consideration that the personnel working for said Ministry forms part of the public sector, this is sufficient grounds to apply to her the benefit of seniority under the terms of Ley 6835. The foregoing is not undermined by the enactment of Laws Nos. 6963 of July 30, 1984, and 6966 of September 25 of that same year, by which those benefits were granted to servants excluded from the Civil Service Regime, effective January 1, 1984. As the Chamber already established in its resolution No. 159 at 9:20 a.m. on last September 18, if subsequent to the issuance of Ley 6835, the legislator provided for the mentioned extension to servants who do not form part of the Civil Service, this cannot be taken as a limiting precept of that law's scope concerning the sector covered by that regime, for the purposes of the annual increases referred to in Article 5 of the Ley de Salarios. There is no basis to understand that those provisions are a clear sign of a specific content that must correspond to Ley 6835, because such budgetary norms were not issued with the character of an authentic interpretation of the same in the sense sought to be attributed to them. Thus, they cannot be seen except as a reiteration of the single objective, which has been difficult to put into practice due to incorrect interpretations that have obstructed it. The same reiterative sense of the law and the lack of concrete expression in this regard prevent giving those norms, obtained by a spurious route, partial derogatory effects on that other one, and much less with negative consequences retroactively regarding factual situations already covered by the prior regulation. In cases such as the present one, where the well-known problems of implementing a law with the general meaning attributed to it by the courts have intervened, due to criteria or restrictive interpretations regarding a specific sphere of the state sector emanating from Public Administration bodies, the enactment of new norms in the sense of the breadth or generality emanating from the text of those first enacted must not necessarily be taken as a signal that the legislator in principle had the idea of granting the benefit in the restricted form that the Administration interpreted, but rather the opposite, because it moves in favor of breadth, unless expressly established in the new laws is the interpretation that the first must be understood in that restricted sense, which did not occur in the case under review. The fact that the budgetary norms established starting points for their application should not be given relevance, because this cannot have the virtue of affecting previous legal situations already covered by the first legislation, according to the interpretation that the courts have been giving it, which remains valid, because its content remains unscathed. (Ruling Number 181 at 10:10 a.m. on October 2, 1991)." "I.- Regarding the first ground alleged by the appellant, namely that Decreto Número 18181 of June 14, 1988, must be applied to this case, on the basis that it does not contravene subsection d) of Article 12 of the Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública, this Chamber has ruled on this matter in reiterated decisions, holding that a decree cannot modify a law by establishing requirements not provided for in that law, and, given that the aforementioned decree establishes requirements not provided for in Ley 6835 of December 22, 1982, for the payment of annual salary increments (anualidades), said decree is illegal and, therefore, to the extent it contravenes the provisions of the law, it cannot be applied in a judicial forum. This Court has upheld the thesis that, by express mandate of Article 8, subsection 2), of the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 18181-H, of June 14, 1988, which regulates the payment of owed annual salary increments (anualidades), is inapplicable because it establishes a series of limitations that the law being regulated does not establish (Sentencias Nº 149, at 9:30 a.m. on September 20, 1989, and 160, at 2:40 p.m. on October 24, 1990). Regarding the second ground of disagreement formulated, that is, that the legislator did not intend to unrestrictedly recognize the time served in other public entities, but rather the seniority-based increases that those employees effectively received in their agency of origin, to prevent them from suffering an economic detriment, by losing the increases they had effectively received in the service of the Public Administration, for the sole fact of "changing employers" within the public sector. This court has expressed its view on this matter on repeated occasions. In this regard, in sentencia N° 136 at 9:20 a.m. on September 14, nineteen hundred ninety, it was stated: "... This Chamber already stated, in its sentencia N° 77 at 9:40 a.m. on June 8, 1990, that neither the Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública, analyzed as a whole, nor Article 12, subsection d), thereof (added by Ley N° 6835, of December 22, 1982), provide that the recognition of accumulated seniority (antigüedad) in the Public Sector, for purposes of annual increases, only applies when an employee transfers from one entity to another and only to the extent that such increases had already been recognized in the agency of origin. On the contrary, judicial and administrative case law (jurisprudencia) has endorsed the recognition of accumulated seniority (antigüedad) in the service of the Public Administration, without questioning whether or not that time was recognized in the Institution of origin, because the objective the Legislator had in mind, when introducing the referenced subsection d), to Article 12, by Ley N° 6835, was solely to remedy the injustice committed against public employees who moved from one entity to another, within the Public Administration, and whose prior service time was not recognized. Note that, undoubtedly, the Chamber's interpretation harmonizes with Article 2° of this Ley N° 6835, which literally reads: "Article 2. A subsection d) is added to Article 12 of the Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública, number 2166 of October 9, 1957, which shall read: 'd) Tenured or interim employees of the Public Sector shall be recognized, for the purposes of the annual increases referred to in Article 5 above, the time of services rendered in other entities of the Public Sector. This provision does not have retroactive effect. This law does not negatively affect the right established in collective bargaining agreements and conventions, in matters of salary negotiation.'" From the study of the Bill (at the initiative of the Poder Ejecutivo, as is apparent from its publication in the Gaceta), nor from the text of the current norm, is it apparent that there exists any need for the annual increases to have been previously recognized in the entity of origin; hence, thinking so would mean assuming a condition that is not provided for by the Law and, consequently, is without basis. Moreover, an interpretation applying, in the opposite sense, the rule of Article 17 of the Código de Trabajo, known as "in dubio pro operario," could not be supported. Additionally, with regard to the basis for annual increases, it is pertinent to transcribe the reference, made in Dictamen C-124-85 of June 17, 1985, by the Procuraduría General de la República, to author Guillermo Cabanellas: "Then, regarding labor law doctrine, we consider it of interest to mention one of the few authors who have addressed the subject under study, the master Guillermo Cabanellas, who, when analyzing seniority increases, tells us: 'The origin of seniority bonuses (premios por antigüedad) is probably found in the benefit that the Public Administration grants to the officials who depend on it, to reward them for their permanence and constancy at work; thus, an increase in remuneration is established for certain periods elapsed, whether in the same category, in the same body, or in the service of the State, accumulating the tasks performed in other public agencies' ([Author's Name], . "Contrato de Trabajo", Bibliográfica Omeba, Buenos Aires. 1963. Vol. II, p. 522). Also, when properly analyzing the reason for being or justification for such increases, the cited commentator indicates that the recognition of seniority bonuses: 'Constitutes a system by which the worker is rewarded for the years he has rendered his services to the company. Perhaps considering it deferred wages, it seeks to keep the worker tied to the same employer for the longest possible time. Since the employment contract is for an indefinite term that the worker can terminate at any time, and it is in the employer's interest for this worker to continue rendering his services for the longest possible time, seniority bonuses are established. With the increase derived from the number of years of service rendered, the employer is interested, as a producer, in keeping his personnel in their employment because of the beneficial knowledge and specialization acquired; since by changing workers in his service, he needs to repeat the training and regain confidence in the capacity and conduct of his subordinates' ([Author's Name], . Op. cit., p. 521). As is also well indicated by Dictamen C-194-83 of June 17, 1983: '...for the purposes of annual increases, the time served in the Public Sector must be recognized, even when there has been an interruption in service. This is so because what is intended to be compensated with the annual increase is the public employee's dedication to the service of the administration and the experience gained therein, independently of the continuous or interrupted nature of the service relationship.'" It is thus clear from the legal analysis performed and from the doctrinal reinforcement transcribed, that it is not necessary, for the purposes of applying that subsection d), of Article 12 of the Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública, added by Ley N° 6835 of December 22, 1982, that in the Institution from which the employee comes, he or she has effectively earned the annual increases based on seniority (antigüedad). The argument expressed by the appellant, that only the situations set forth in subsection c) of Article 12 of the Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública do not interrupt the one-year period required for the salary increase, is not acceptable, for such a thing cannot be deduced from the text of the referenced norm. Subsection c) of the indicated provision states: "Vacations, justified illness, temporary performance of another public post, even if excluded from the Régimen del Servicio Civil, leave without pay to conduct studies in international organizations of which Costa Rica is a member, and licenses for training or studies related to the official's own function or in a related discipline, wherein they would return to work due to a proven national need, do not interrupt the one-year period required for the salary increase." From the reading of the cited norm, it is concluded that the legislator intended that in the event the circumstances contemplated therein arise, the computation of the one year required for the salary increase is not suspended; in no way is it indicated that in all other cases, the worker loses the entirety of the accumulated seniority (antigüedad) in the service of the Public Administration; interpreting it otherwise would mean ignoring the in dubio pro-operario principle, which governs labor matters. Moreover, Dictamen C-194-83 of June 17, 1983, already cited in the preceding Considerando, establishes that for the purposes of annual increases, the time served in the Public Sector must be recognized, even when there has been an interruption in service; which is explained by the fact that what is intended to be compensated with the annual increase is the employee's dedication to the service of the public administration and the experience gained therein, independently of the continuous or interrupted nature of the service relationship. It is indicated in the appeal that the time worked by the plaintiff for the State, which she claims for the recognition of annual salary increments (anualidades), is governed by special legislation, namely Article 12 of Ley 6963 of July 30, 1984, and Article 7 of Ley 6966 of September 25, 1984. This Chamber, in reiterated decisions, has indicated that "... the recognition of seniority (antigüedad) in the public sector, for the purposes of paying annual increases for services rendered in any of its institutions, whether or not covered by statutory regimes, finds its basis in Articles 4° and 12, subsection d), of the Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública, as amended by Ley N° 6835, of December 22, 1982. Through the first norm, a new salary scale was established, at the end of which it was expressly stated that 'The previous scale shall govern for the entire Public Sector...' The second provision established: 'Tenured or interim employees of the Public Sector shall be recognized, for the purposes of the increases referred to in Article 5°, above, the time of services rendered in other entities of the Public Sector. This provision does not have retroactive effect. This law does not negatively affect the right established in collective bargaining agreements and conventions, in matters of salary negotiation.' As has been understood, these provisions constitute a culmination of the application in the Public Administration of the theory of the 'SINGLE EMPLOYER STATE,' whose practical application seeks a very clear purpose, which is to correct the injustice suffered by persons who transferred to work from one institution to another, within that same Sector, without the right, due to the formal distinction that was made, to enjoy the benefits that are generally obtained from seniority (antigüedad) in the rendering of service with one employer, so as to avoid discrimination that conflicts with Labor Law. As is known, the application of this thesis has been occurring progressively, first for certain effects such as vacations, retirement and pensions, severance pay, annual increases, and it was enshrined in the aforementioned Ley 6835, for the purposes indicated therein, whose application, despite the modifications having been made to the Ley General de Salarios de la Administración Pública, which was enacted in accordance with provisions of the Estatuto de Servicio Civil regarding salaries of the Executive Branch, must be general, because, besides fulfilling its purpose within that specific context, the spirit of the norm is clear in establishing mechanisms to treat equally, in that field, all employees of the public sector, which cannot be ignored, not only because of the explicit wording of the norms, but because, as stated, they are merely part of the evolution of ideas on the matter that have been forged for some time. Had the legislator wished to give the reform a specific or particular application for the classes of positions classified in the Manual Descriptivo del Servicio Civil, taking into account the provisions of Article 1° of said Ley General de Salarios, it would not have made other statements, so that if it did so, expressing that it shall govern '...for the entire Public Sector...' and made an exception for rights acquired through collective bargaining agreements (convenciones colectivas) that might have occurred in some areas of that Sector (whose practice leads it to be conceived as general already), what must necessarily be concluded is what the Chamber deduced, namely broad application. Among others, one can consult the decisions of this same Chamber, Nos. 58 of 2:30 p.m. on April 30, 1986, and 82, of 10:10 a.m. on July 5, 1989 (the latter includes important case law (jurisprudencial) background)." (Sentencia Número 181 at ten hours ten minutes on October two, nineteen hundred ninety-one). Based on the foregoing, if the plaintiff worked for the Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, for the period between November 1, 1979, and May 16, 1982, and taking into consideration that the personnel working for that Ministry is part of the public sector, this is sufficient grounds to apply the seniority benefit (beneficio de la antigüedad) to her under the terms of Ley 6835. The foregoing is not impaired by the enactment of Leyes Nos. 6963 of July 30, 1984, and 6966 of September 25 of that same year, by which those benefits were granted to employees excluded from the régime of the Servicio Civil, as of January first, nineteen hundred eighty-four. As the Chamber already established in its resolución N° 159 at 9:20 a.m. on September 18 last, if subsequent to the issuance of Ley 6835, the legislator provided the aforementioned extension to employees who are not part of the Servicio Civil, this cannot be taken as a limiting precept on the scope of that law to the sector covered by that régime, for the purposes of the annual increases referred to in Article 5° of the Ley de Salarios. There is no basis to understand that those provisions are a clear sign of a certain content that must correspond to Ley 6835, because such budgetary norms were not issued with the nature of an authentic interpretation of the same in the sense that one wishes to attribute to them. In this manner, they cannot be seen, but as the reiteration of the sole objective, which has been difficult to put into practice, due to incorrect interpretations that have obstructed it. The same reiterative sense of the law and the lack of concrete expression in this regard, prevent granting those norms, obtained through spurious means, partial repealing effects of that other law, much less with negative consequences retroactively regarding factual situations already covered by the previous legislation. In cases such as the present, where the well-known problems of putting into practice a law with the general sense that the courts have attributed to it have intervened, due to restrictive criteria or interpretations regarding a certain scope of the State sector, emanating from the organs of the Public Administration, the enactment of new norms in the sense of the breadth or generality that flows from the letter of the first ones enacted, should not necessarily be taken as a sign that the legislator, in principle, had the idea of granting the benefit in the restricted form that the Administration interpreted, but rather the opposite, because it goes in favor of breadth, unless, expressly, the new laws establish the interpretation that the first must be understood in that restricted sense, which did not happen in the case under examination. No relevance should be given to the fact that the budgetary norms established starting points for their application, because that cannot have the virtue of affecting prior legal situations already covered by the first legislation, according to the interpretation that the courts have been giving to it, which remains valid, because its content remains unscathed. (Sentencia Número 181 at ten hours ten minutes on October two, nineteen hundred ninety-one)."

"I.- En cuanto al primer motivo alegado por la recurrente, sea que el Decreto Número 18181 de 14 de junio de 1988 debe ser aplicado al caso en examen, por considerar que el mismo no contraría el inciso d) del artículo 12 de la Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública, esta Sala en reiteradas resoluciones se ha pronunciado al respecto, en el sentido que un decreto no puede modificar una ley estableciendo requisitos no previstos por ésta, y, siendo que el Decreto aludido establece requisitos no previstos en la Ley 6835 de 22 de diciembre de 1982 para el pago de anualidades, el mismo deviene en ilegal por lo que, en cuanto contraríe lo dispuesto en la ley, no puede ser aplicado en sede judicial. Este Tribunal ha sostenido la tesis de que, por mandato expreso del artículo 8, inciso 2), de la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, el Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 18181-H, del 14 de junio de 1988, que reglamenta el pago de anualidades adeudadas, resulta inaplicable por establecer una serie de limitaciones que la ley reglamentada no establece (Sentencias Nº 149, de las 9.30 horas del 20 de setiembre de 1989 y 160, de las 14.40 horas del 24 de octubre de 1990). En cuanto al segundo motivo de disconformidad formulado, o sea que el legislador no pretendió reconocer en forma irrestricta el tiempo servido en otras entidades públicas, sino los aumentos por antigüedad que esos servidores efectivamente recibían en el organismo de procedencia, para evitar que por el solo hecho de "cambiar de patrono", dentro del sector público, sufrieran un menoscabo económico, al perder los aumentos que efectivamente habían percibido al servicio de la Administración Pública. En reiteradas oportunidades ha expresado criterio sobre ese tema este tribunal. Al respecto, en la sentencia N° 136 de las 9 horas 20 minutos del 14 de setiembre de mil novecientos noventa, se expresó: "... Ya lo dijo esta Sala, en su sentencia N° 77 de las 9.40 hrs. del 8 de junio de 1990, que ni la Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública, integralmente analizada, ni el artículo 12, inciso d), de la misma (adicionado por Ley N° 6835, del 22 de diciembre de 1982), prevén que el reconocimiento de la antigüedad acumulada en el Sector Público, para efectos de aumentos anuales, sólo procede cuando se da el traslado del servidor de un ente a otro y en el tanto en que en el de procedencia los incrementos de comentario hubieren sido ya reconocidos. Por el contrario, la jurisprudencia judicial y la administrativa, han avalado el reconocimiento de la antigüedad acumulada al servicio de la Administración Pública, sin cuestionarse si ese tiempo fue o no reconocido en la Institución de procedencia, en razón de que el objetivo que tuvo en mente el Legislador, al introducir el referido inciso d), al artículo 12, por Ley N° 6835, fue únicamente el de reparar la injusticia que se cometía con los servidores públicos que pasaban de una entidad a otra, dentro de la Administración Pública, y no se les reconocía el tiempo de servicio prestado. Nótese que, sin duda, la interpretación de la Sala rima con el artículo 2° de esta Ley N° 6835, que textualmente reza: "Artículo 2. Se agrega un inciso d) al artículo 12 de la Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública, número 2166 del 9 de octubre de 1957, que dirá: "d) A los servidores del Sector Público, en propiedad o interinos, se les reconocerá, para efectos de aumentos anuales a que se refiere el artículo 5 anterior, el tiempo de servicios prestados en otras entidades del Sector Público. Esta disposición no tiene carácter retroactivo. Esta ley no afecta en sentido negativo el derecho establecido en convenciones colectivas y convenios, en materia de negociación salarial". Del estudio del Proyecto de Ley (por iniciativa del Poder Ejecutivo, según se desprende de su publicación en la Gaceta), ni de la letra de la norma vigente, se desprende que exista necesidad alguna de que los aumentos anuales, hubiesen sido previamente reconocidos en el ente de origen; de ahí que pensarlo de tal forma significaría dar por existente una condición que no está prevista por la Ley y, en consecuencia, carece de asidero. De otra parte, no se podría prohijar una interpretación que aplicara, en sentido contrario, la regla del artículo 17 del Código de Trabajo, conocida como "in dubio pro operario". Además, en lo que concierne al fundamento de los aumentos anuales, cabe transcribir la referencia que, del autor Guillermo Cabanellas, se hizo en el dictamen de la Procuraduría General de la República, C-124-85, del 17 de junio de 1985: "Luego en lo tocante a la doctrina juslaboralista, consideramos de interés hacer mención de uno de los pocos autores que se han ocupado del tema en estudio, el maestro Guillermo Cabanellas, quien al analizar los aumentos por antigüedad nos dice: "El origen de los premios por antigüedad se encuentra probablemente en el beneficio que la Administración Pública otorga a los funcionarios que de ella dependen, para recompensarles la permanencia y constancia en el trabajo; se establece así un incremento en la retribución por ciertos lapsos transcurridos, bien en la misma categoría, bien en el mismo cuerpo, bien al servicio del Estado, acumulando las tareas desempeñadas en otras dependencias públicas" ([Nombre1], . "Contrato de Trabajo", Bibliográfica Omeba, Buenos Aires. 1963. Vol. II, pág. 522). También, al analizar propiamente la razón de ser o justificación de dichos incrementos, indica el citado tratadista que el reconocimiento de los premios por antigüedad: "Constituye un sistema por el cual se recompensa al trabajador por los años que ha prestado sus servicios a la empresa. Estimándolo quizá un salario diferido, se procura mantener al trabajador unido al mismo empresario durante el mayor tiempo posible. Siendo el de trabajo un contrato por plazo indefinido que el trabajador puede romper en cualquier momento, y de interés para el empresario que este trabajador continúe prestando sus servicios el mayor tiempo posible, se establecen premios a la antigüedad. Con el aumento derivado del número de años de servicios prestados, al patrono le interesa, como productor, que su personal se mantenga en su empleo por lo beneficioso de los conocimientos y especialización adquiridos; pues al cambiar de trabajadores a su servicio, necesita reiterar las enseñanzas y readquirir confianza en la capacidad y conducta de sus subordinados" ([Nombre1], . Ob. cit., pág. 521). Como bien lo indica además el dictamen C-194-83 del 17 de junio de 1983: "... para los efectos de los aumentos anuales debe reconocerse el tiempo servido al Sector Público, aún cuando haya habido interrupción en el servicio. Ello es así porque lo que se pretende retribuir con el aumento anual es la dedicación del servidor público al servicio de la administración y la experiencia obtenida en la misma, independientemente del carácter continuo o interrumpido de la relación de servicio". Queda claro entonces con el análisis jurídico efectuado y con el refuerzo doctrinario transcrito, que no es necesario, para los efectos de la aplicación ese inciso d), del artículo 12 de la Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública, adicionado por Ley N° 6835 de 22 de diciembre de 1982, que en la Institución de donde proviene el servidor, éste haya devengado efectivamente los aumentos anuales en razón de antigüedad". El argumento expresado por la parte recurrente, de que únicamente los presupuestos que se establecen en el inciso c) del artículo 12 de la Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública, no interrumpen el período de un año requerido para el aumento de sueldo, no es de recibo, pues de la letra de la norma aludida no se puede deducir tal cosa. El inciso c) del numeral indicado expresa: "Las vacaciones, la enfermedad justificada, el desempeño temporal de otro puesto público, aunque estuviere excluido del Régimen del Servicio Civil, los permisos sin goce de salario para realizar estudios en organismos internacionales de los cuales Costa Rica sea miembro y las licencias para adiestramiento o estudios relativos para la función propia que desempeña el funcionario o en una disciplina afín, en la cual regresara a trabajar por comprobada necesidad nacional, no interrumpen el período de un año requerido para el aumento de sueldo." De la lectura de la citada norma se concluye que el legislador pretendió que en caso de que se presenten las circunstancias en ella contempladas no se suspende el cómputo de un año requerido para el aumento de sueldo; en modo alguno, se indica que en todos los demás casos, el trabajador pierde la totalidad de la antigüedad acumulada al servicio de la Administración Pública; interpretarlo de otra forma, significaría desconocer el principio in dubio pro-operario, que informa la materia laboral. A mayor abundamiento, el dictamen C-194-83 del 17 de junio de 1983, ya citado en el considerando anterior, establece que para lo efectos de los aumentos anuales debe reconocerse el tiempo servido al Sector Público, aún cuando haya habido interrupción en el servicio; lo que se explica en el hecho que lo que se pretende retribuir con el aumento anual es la dedicación del servidor al servicio de la administración pública y la experiencia obtenida en la misma, independientemente del carácter continuo o interrumpido de la relación de servicio. Se indica en el recurso que, el tiempo laborado por la actora, para el Estado, del cual reclama para el reconocimiento de anualidades, tiene normativa especial cual es el artículo 12 de la Ley 6963 de 30 de julio de 1984 y el numeral 7 de la Ley 6966 del 25 de setiembre de 1984. Esta Sala en reiteradas resoluciones ha indicado que "... el reconocimiento de la antigüedad en el sector público, para efectos del pago de aumentos anuales por los servicios prestados en cualquiera de sus instituciones, estén o no cubiertas por regímenes de naturaleza estatutaria, encuentra fundamento en los artículos 4° y 12, inciso d), de la Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública, reformados por la Ley N° 6835, de 22 de diciembre de 1982. A través de la primera norma, se estableció una nueva escala de salarios, al final de la cual se dijo expresamente que "La anterior escala regirá para todo el Sector Público...". En la segunda disposición se dejó establecido: "A los servidores del Sector Público, en propiedad o interinos, se les reconocerá, para efectos de los aumentos a que se refiere el artículo 5°, anterior, el tiempo de servicios prestados en otras entidades del Sector Público. Esta disposición no tiene carácter retroactivo. Esta ley no afecta en sentido negativo el derecho establecido en las convenciones colectivas y convenios, en materia de negociación salarial". Según se ha entendido, estas disposiciones vienen a ser un culminación de la aplicación en la Administración Pública de la teoría "del Estado PATRONO UNICO", cuya aplicación práctica busca un propósito bien claro, cual es el de corregir la injusticia que sufrían las personas que se trasladaban a trabajar de una institución a otra, dentro de ese mismo Sector, sin derecho por la distinción formal que se hacía, a disfrutar de los beneficios que generalmente se obtienen de la antigüedad en la prestación del servicio con un patrono, de modo que se eviten discriminaciones chocantes con el Derecho Laboral. Como es sabido, la aplicación de esta tesis ha venido dándose en forma progresiva, primero para ciertos efectos como vacaciones, jubilaciones y pensiones, cesantía, aumentos anuales, y se plasmó en la Ley 6835 antes citada, para los fines que en ella se indican, cuya aplicación, no obstante que las modificaciones se hicieran en el Ley General de Salarios de la Administración Pública, que se dictó de acuerdo con previsiones del Estatuto de Servicio Civil en materia de salarios del Poder Ejecutivo, debe ser general, porque, amén de llenar su cometido dentro de ese contexto específico, el espíritu de la norma es claro en establecer mecanismos para tratar de igual manera, en ese campo, a todos los servidores del sector público, lo que no puede desconocerse, no sólo por la forma expresa de las normas, sino porque, como se dijo, las mismas no son sino parte de la evolución de ideas sobre la materia que han venido forjándose desde hace tiempo. Si el legislador hubiera querido darle a la reforma una aplicación específica o particular para las clases de puestos clasificados en el Manual Descriptivo del Servicio Civil, tomando en cuanta lo establecido en el artículo 1° de dicha Ley General de Salarios, no habría hecho otras manifestaciones, de modo que si las hizo expresando que regirá "... para todo el Sector Público..." y dejó a salvo los derechos adquiridos a través de convenciones colectivas que pudieran haberse dado en alguna áreas de ese Sector (cuya práctica lleva a concebirlo ya como general), lo que necesariamente debe concluirse es lo que dedujo la Sala, o sea la aplicación extensiva. Entre otras, pueden consultarse las resoluciones de esta misma Sala, Nos. 58 de las 14 y 30 horas del 30 de abril de 1986 y 82, de las 10 y 10 horas del 5 de julio de 1989 (ésta incluye antecedentes jurisprudenciales importantes)." (sentencia Número 181 de las diez horas diez minutos del dos de octubre de mil novecientos noventa y uno). Con fundamento en lo anterior, si la actora laboró para el Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, por el período comprendido entre el 1° de noviembre de 1979 al 16 de mayo de 1982, y tomando en consideración que el personal que labora para tal Ministerio, forma parte del sector público, es motivo suficiente para aplicarle el beneficio de la antigüedad en los términos de la Ley 6835. Lo expuesto no se ve menoscabado por la promulgación de la Leyes Nos. 6963 de 30 de julio de 1984 y 6966 de 25 de setiembre de ese mismo año, por las cuales se otorgaron aquellos beneficios a los servidores excluidos del régimen del Servicio Civil, a partir del primero de enero de mil novecientos ochenta y cuatro. Como ya lo estableció la Sala en su resolución N° 159 de las 9 y 20 horas del 18 de setiembre último, si con posterioridad a la emisión de la Ley 6835, el legislador dispuso la mencionada extensión a servidores que no forman parte del Servicio Civil, ello no puede tomarse como un precepto limitativo de los alcances de aquella ley al sector cubierto por ese régimen, para los efectos de los aumentos anuales a que se refiere el artículo 5° de la Ley de Salarios. No hay base para entender que esas disposiciones sean un signo claro de un determinado contenido que deba corresponder a la Ley 6835, porque tales normas presupuestarias no se emitieron con el carácter de interpretación auténtica de la misma en el sentido que se les quiere atribuir. De esta manera, no pueden verse, sino como la reiteración del único objetivo, que ha sido difícil ponerlo en práctica, debido a interpretaciones incorrectas que lo han obstaculizado. El mismo sentido reiterativo de la ley y la falta de expresión concreta al respecto, impiden darle a esas normativas, obtenidas por vía espuria, efectos derogatorios parciales de aquella otra y mucho menos con consecuencias negativas en forma retroactiva respecto de situaciones de hecho ya cubiertas por la normativa anterior. En casos como el presente en que han mediado los problemas bien conocidos de la puesta en práctica de una ley con el sentido general que le han atribuido los tribunales, debido a criterios o interpretaciones restrictivas respecto de un determinado ámbito del sector del Estado, emanados de los órganos de la Administración Pública, la promulgación de nuevas normas en el sentido de la amplitud o generalidad que emana de la letra de la primeramente dictadas, no necesariamente debe tomarse, como señal de que el legislador en principio tuvo la idea de conceder el beneficio en la forma restringida que interpretó la Administración, sino de lo contrario, porque se va en favor de la amplitud, salvo que, expresamente, se establezca en las nuevas leyes la interpretación de que la primera debe entenderse en ese sentido restringido, lo que no sucedió en el caso bajo examen. Al hecho de que las normas presupuestarias establecieran puntos de partida para su aplicación, no debe dársele relevancia, porque ello no puede tener la virtud de afectar situaciones jurídicas anteriores cubiertas ya por la primera legislación, según la interpretación que han venido dándole a la misma los tribunales, que sigue siendo válida, porque su contenido se mantiene incólume. (sentencia Número 181 de las diez horas diez minutos del dos de octubre de mil novecientos noventa y uno)."