Recognition of seniority-based annual increases for municipal workers under Law 6835Reconocimiento de anualidades a trabajadores municipales conforme la Ley 6835

"I. The representative of the defendant MUNICIPALITY files an appeal in cassation (recurso de casación) against the judgment issued by the Superior Labor Court, Second Section, at ten hours and twenty minutes on February twenty-fourth, nineteen ninety-four, wherein the lower court ruling issued by the First Labor Court of San José was confirmed, but clarified in the sense that the worker should be awarded payment of thirteen annual salary increments (anualidades), given that the maximum ceiling conferred by the legal system is thirty annual increments. II. The grounds for this appeal are based primarily on the fact that, according to the appellant, the M. DE S. J. is an autonomous entity (ente autónomo) that enjoys administrative and political autonomy; this means that the LEY DE SALARIOS DE LA ADMINISTRACION PUBLICA is not applicable to municipal entities, since that regulation is limited to the PODER EJECUTIVO and other autonomous institutions assigned to that regime. Due to this circumstance, the defendant argues that, in salary matters, the regulation applicable to Municipalities is the salary scale and the Manual Descriptivo de Empleos approved by each Concejo Municipal; therefore, the calculation of annual increments sought by the plaintiff is not applicable to it, based on the principle of legality (principio de legalidad) that places it under a different legislative regime regarding annual increments. III. In order to carry out the analysis of the objections raised by the appellant, it is necessary to transcribe, in what is of interest, the judgment of this Chamber, No. 123, of 9:10 a.m. on August 7, 1991, which stated: "II. Autonomous entities, in accordance with the provisions of Article 188 of the Political Constitution, have independence and freedom to establish their own system of government, which includes a certain legislative power, but only referring to unregulated activity. The basis of this autonomous freedom lies in the specialty that characterizes the function that gave rise to their creation. That legislative power of the autonomous entity shall in no case permit it to legislate contrary to the Constitution or the Law, because the legislative function is reserved in our system to the Asamblea Legislativa. The governing activity that autonomous entities and state universities, as well as other Higher Education institutions referred to in Article 84 of the Constitution, have is in the strict sense. It shall consist of issuing their own rules to develop the purpose and achieve the specialized goals assigned to them by the law that created them. The autonomous doctrine, embodied in the aforementioned Article 188 of the Political Constitution, did not grant autonomous entities full power to legislate. However, since they have been created by the State to carry out a special service, which constitutes the entity's entire activity, and the proper functioning of the service is the goal and raison d'être, in developing their specialty, they enjoy autonomy, which allows them freedom and independence, but without exceeding their limits, because if they were allowed to go further, the beneficiaries of the service would have no defense against their irregularities. We are faced with an organic specialty, by function and by subject matter, which gives us the quality of the autonomy of the entities and determines a sphere within which it is autonomous, but no further. The sphere of action may be more or less broad, depending on the nature of the service and the entity's financial possibilities. Outside that sphere, it is incapable of self-legislating, and the acts it carries out in that sense are null and void. On the subject, the Uruguayan author Domichelli Alberto may be consulted, Autonomous Entities, pages 293 et seq., cited in Cassation judgment number 94 of fourteen hours and thirty minutes on September eleventh, nineteen fifty-eight...". IV. It is a clear fact, adduced by the appellant, that there is autonomy in favor of Municipal Corporations, as established by Article 170 of the Political Constitution. However, with respect to the scope of application of Law No. 6835 of December 22, 1982, this Chamber has repeatedly expressed its criterion, as in judgments such as No. 180 of 3:10 p.m. on August 25, 1993, which, in what is worth highlighting, provided: "I. The recognition of seniority (antigüedad) in the Sector Público, for purposes of payment of 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, reformed by Law No. 6835 of December 22, 1982. Through the first provision, a new salary scale was established, at the end of which it was expressly stated that: 'The previous scale shall govern for the entire Sector Público...'. In the second provision, it was established: 'Servants of the Sector Público, whether tenured (en propiedad) or interim, shall have recognized, for purposes of the increases referred to in Article 5 above, the time of services rendered in other entities of the Sector Público. This provision does not have retroactive effect. 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 reveal the validity, throughout the Public Administration, of the theory 'of the State as a single employer (Estado como patrono único)', 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 made, to enjoy the benefits that are generally obtained from seniority in the provision of service with an employer, thereby seeking to avoid offensive discriminations. As is known, the application of this thesis has been occurring progressively, first for certain purposes such as vacations, retirement and pensions, severance pay (cesantía), annual increases, and was embodied in the aforementioned Law 6835 for the purposes indicated therein, whose application, despite the modifications having been made to the Ley General de Salarios de la Administración Pública, No. 2106 of October 9, 1957, and its reforms, which was issued in accordance with the provisions of the Estatuto de Servicio Civil regarding salaries of the Poder Ejecutivo, must be general because, in addition to fulfilling its purpose within that specific context, the spirit of the rule is clear in establishing mechanisms to treat all servants of the Sector Público equally in that field; which cannot be ignored, not only because of the explicit wording of the rules, but because, as stated, they are merely part of the natural evolution of ideas on the matter, which 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 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 if it made them expressing that it shall govern '...for the entire Sector Público...' and safeguarded the rights acquired 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, that is to say, extensive application. Hence, Articles 1, 4, 5, and 12, subsection d) of the Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública were not violated in the ruling of the ad-quem, as the appellant claims, but, quite the contrary, correctly applied to the case, given that what is precisely at issue is the recognition of the time served by the plaintiffs in the Sector Público for purposes of the salary increase through annual increments. Among others, consult the resolutions of this same Chamber, Nos. 58 of 2:30 p.m. on April 30, 1986; 82 of 10:10 a.m. on July 5, 1989; and 181 of 10:10 a.m. on October 2, 1991...". V. Under this line of jurisprudential thought outlined, it is legally undeniable that the personnel of the M. DE S. J. form part of the Sector Público, verbigracia, Public Administration (Administración Pública), within the terms of Article 1 of both the Ley General de la Administración Pública and Article 4 of the Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso-Administrativa. Furthermore, taking into account its condition as a legal person under Public Law, and despite its functional independence and self-government (autogobierno), Law No. 6835 is applicable to it, based on the fact that the lack of coverage with respect to the Servicio Civil regime cannot constitute an obstacle to recognizing the seniority accumulated in the service of the State (doctrine and jurisprudence of the single employer); because the incentive of the annual increases does not directly originate from that statutory regulation. Based on this, it must be understood a contrario sensu that the autonomy enjoyed by municipal corporations has to do with the exercise of their governmental and functional powers for the fulfillment of their own purposes; in addition to a normative power (potestad de orden normativo) referring to those aspects that are, indeed, subject to their exclusive competence. Those powers and their scope, granted to the Municipalities, are in the strict sense, and consist of being able to issue rules to develop their purpose and achieve the specialized goals assigned to them, in this specific case, by the Código Municipal and related laws. That is, we are speaking of an organic specialty, by function and by subject matter, which delimits the degree of autonomy of these other, minor territorial entities and determines a space of action within which they are autonomous, but no further. That sphere may be more or less broad, depending on the nature of the service and the entity's real financial possibilities. Outside it, it is incapable of self-regulation (autonormarse), and its regulation must yield to the ordinary legislation of the State—the major entity—which is always of general scope and application (erga omnes). VI. The foregoing implies that, with respect to the public employment regime in force at the defendant entity, it must be taken into account that the employees who work for it are human resources used in its functions to fulfill its competencies in the exercise of the respective powers; and for that reason, they are covered by self-government. But also, when it comes to ordinary rules issued by the Asamblea Legislativa that do not expressly and typically regulate that exclusive competence, but rather diversely, abstract and general situations that affect the municipal corporation in the same way as they do any other similar legal subject that meets the factual prerequisites determined therein, that administrative autonomy cannot relieve it from respecting and complying with the demands of that legal system. Therefore, for the provisions emanating from the Concejo or, as the case may be, from the Ejecutivo Municipal to prevail over ordinary legislation that opposes them, it is necessary that they respect the minimum content of the rights and benefits that said legislation has established with a global, albeit sectoral, scope—Articles 11 and 74 of the Political Constitution and 2, 11, 14, 19, 20, and 586 of the Código de Trabajo—; consequently, in the case of municipal servants, part of a public employment relationship, if Law No. 6835 came to grant them rights, taking into account their essential, indisputable condition as public servants, as human resources subject to the fulfillment of the purposes and functions constitutionally and legally imposed on the Municipal Corporation, those advantageous legal situations, of a statutory nature, must be fully recognized to them, due to their current service relationship, which is under Public Law. VII. Failing to interpret in the manner previously cited would mean failing to apply legislation that is more beneficial for municipal servants; in such a way that it is not contrary to numerals 169 and 170 of the Political Constitution, as it does not overlook the autonomy assigned to Municipal Corporations, but rather imposes inescapable justice and equality in an aspect that integrates the public employment relationship; namely: the recognition of seniority accumulated in the service of the Public Administration as a whole, of which the Municipalities also form a part; since it is defined that the right incorporated by Law No. 6835 into Law No. 2106 is a benefit applicable to all public servants who have accumulated service time for the State, so that their salary increases annually, and not a capriciously extended prerogative that harms municipal competence, much less its power of self-government. On the other hand, the constitutional norms on the Municipal Regime do not exempt the Corporations from complying with the obligations imposed by ordinary legislation; which, in the case of Law No. 6835, it is reiterated, does not harm the degree of administrative decentralization (descentralización administrativa) that the defendant enjoys; it is therefore subject to having to respect the seniority of its servants, accumulated within and outside it. Following the aforementioned, ordinals 191 and 192 of the Magna Carta cannot constitute any obstacle that prevents recognizing the annual increments, in accordance with that Law 6835, because although it came to reform and add to the Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública; which, in turn, is complemented by the Estatuto de Servicio Civil, from the text of the former it is clear that its effects go beyond servants subject to the direct statutory regime; in addition to the fact that the latter has general effects and scope (See the votes of the Sala Constitucional, Nos. 1696 and 3285 of 3:30 p.m. on June 23 and 3:00 p.m. on October 30, both of 1992 respectively). VIII. If, in exercise of the powers granted to it by Law—Article 142 of the Código Municipal—, the Ejecutivo Municipal of San José has a Manual Descriptivo de Puestos, that is a situation that, as explained supra, cannot negate the plaintiff's right to have the sought annual increases recognized; given that this internal regulation cannot be used to disapply the minimum content of rights that protects the service relationship of all servants of the Public Administration; on the specific point of annual increments—Articles 11 of the Political Constitution and 11 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública—. This legal situation means that the thesis sustained by this Chamber must clearly prevail, in its resolution No. 8 of 9:50 a.m. on January 13, 1993, in the sense that: "IV. The autonomy of municipal corporations, contemplated in Articles 169 and 170 of the Political Constitution, cannot be negated by the application of Law 6835, since it is referred to, as territorial entities they are, the administration of local services and interests for the promotion of the integral development of the respective cantons, a field within which labor policies that, through specific legislation, the State sovereignly imposes are not foreseen. Nor does this in any way hinder the tasks that Article 142 of the Código Municipal grants to the Ejecutivo Municipal regarding the elaboration of the manual descriptivo de empleos...". In the case at hand, it is therefore not a matter of obliging the defendant Corporation to adopt the Salary Scale or the Manual Descriptivo de Puestos referred to in the Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública; but rather, simply, that it must proceed to recognize a benefit that, equally and generally, that regulation grants to all public servants; namely, the recognition of seniority accumulated in the service of the Public Administration, that is, in the case at hand, the time worked by the plaintiff for the M. DE O. P. Y T., for purposes of annual increases. Nor is it a matter of obliging the Corporation to make expenditures not authorized by the Legal System, contrary to numeral 67 of the Código Municipal, because the basis for that expenditure has full normative support, as has been explained, and rather, not recognizing the benefit under discussion would constitute manifest unjust enrichment (enriquecimiento sin causa) in favor of the Administration, to the direct detriment of those servants who are in a situation like the one described and, thereby, illegitimate and unlawful. IX. Finally, regarding the objection's claim that the benefit of seniority is intended to be given retroactive effect, since it was recognized in the defendant Corporation starting in 1977, thereby contradicting numerals 49, 169, and 170 of the Political Constitution, the appellant is also not correct in this. In the first place, among others, in judgment No. 66 of 9:40 a.m. on June 6, 1990, it was clearly established, in what is of interest: "...This is another nuance of the reform under study, which was the subject of discussion and was settled by the resolution of the Tribunal del Servicio Civil of 3:55 p.m. on August 21, 1986, when in its relevant part it stated: '...III. Merits. This Tribunal does not share either the criterion of the Dirección General del Servicio Civil or that of the Procuraduría General de la República. The reasons are the following: As the legislator recorded in the statement of legislative intent (exposición de motivos) of Law 6835-82, Article 12, subsection d), that regulation was issued to remedy an injustice. In the legislator's own words, "it is intended to correct a great injustice." If that was the intention, it could never have embraced a criterion that precisely causes the injustice to persist. The meaning of the sentence in the Law that provides: "This provision does not have retroactive character" is to not allow the worker to whom it was applied to claim payment with effect prior to the Law...'. It is observed from this normative provision that precisely the Legislator wanted to avoid affecting the current budget with obligations for settled periods, and that same meaning is the one held by the rule invoked by the plaintiff, because otherwise the remedy or correction of the injustice that motivated its issuance would be rendered illusory..." Indeed, for what corresponds to the recognition of seniority, it is clear that the rule has effects towards the past, but, regarding the payment resulting from the recognition of seniority for purposes of annual increases, it only governs towards the future, thereby not affecting the national budget, which in our country governs annually...". In the second place, and attending to the recognition made in favor of the plaintiff of a seniority accumulated prior to the entry into force of the system that established the payment of annual increments in the defendant Corporation; it is worth noting that the non-existence of that incentive in dates prior to those claimed is not an obstacle that halts the legitimate aspirations of the plaintiff; because, as just stated, all accumulated seniority is recognized, but its payment governs towards the future, based on the current Salary Scale—see the judgment of this Chamber No. 81 of 9:00 a.m. on July 5, 1989, Considerando VII—. X. By virtue of all the foregoing, it is appropriate to confirm the appealed ruling." Therefore, articles 1, 4, 5, and 12, subsection d) of the Public Administration Salary Law (Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública) were not violated in the ad-quem ruling, as claimed by the appellant, but, quite the contrary, correctly applied to the case, given that precisely at issue is the recognition of the time served by the plaintiffs in the Public Sector (Sector Público), for purposes of the salary increase for years of service (anualidades). Among others, the resolutions of this same Chamber can be consulted, Nos. 58, at 2:30 p.m., of April 30, 1986; 82, at 10:10 a.m., of July 5, 1989; and 181, at 10:10 a.m., of October 2, 1991...". V. Under this line of jurisprudential thought outlined, it is legally undeniable that the personnel of the M. de S. J. form part of the Public Sector, for example, the Public Administration (Administración Pública), in the terms of articles 1, of both the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) and 4 of the Regulatory Law of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso-Administrativa). On the other hand, taking into account its status as a legal entity of Public Law, notwithstanding its functional independence and self-government, Law No. 6835 is applicable to it, based on the fact that the lack of coverage regarding the Civil Service (Servicio Civil) regime cannot signify an obstacle to recognizing the accumulated seniority (antigüedad) in service to the State (doctrine and jurisprudence of the single employer); because the incentive of the annual increases does not directly originate from that statutory regulation. Based on this, it must be understood a contrario sensu that the autonomy enjoyed by municipal corporations concerns the exercise of their governmental and functional powers, for the fulfillment of the purposes that are proper to them; in addition to a normative power, referring to those aspects submitted, these indeed, to their exclusive competence. Those powers and their scope, granted to the Municipalities, are in a strict sense, and consist of being able to issue rules to develop the purpose and to achieve the specialized ends assigned to them, in this specific case, by the Municipal Code (Código Municipal) and related laws. That is, we are talking about an organic specialty, by function and by subject matter, that delimits the degree of autonomy of those other, lesser, territorial entities, determines a space of action within which they are autonomous, but not beyond. That sphere may be more or less broad, depending on the nature of the service and the real patrimonial possibilities of the entity. Outside of it, it is incapable of self-regulation and its regulation must yield to the ordinary legislation of the State—the greater entity—which is always of general scope and application (erga omnes). VI. The foregoing implies that, regarding the public employment regime in force at the defendant. It must be taken into account that the employees who work for it are human resources it uses in its functions, to fulfill its competences, in the exercise of the respective powers; and for that reason, they are covered by that of self-government; but also, when it comes to ordinary norms, issued by the Legislative Assembly, that do not regulate, expressly and typically, that exclusive competence, but, differently, abstract and general situations that affect the municipal corporation in the same way as they do regarding any other similar legal subject that finds itself in the factual assumptions that the norm determines, that administrative autonomy cannot relieve it of respecting and complying with the requirements of that legal system. Therefore, in order for the provisions emanating from the Council or, as the case may be, from the Municipal Executive, to prevail over the ordinary legislation that opposes them, it is necessary that, in them, the minimum content of the rights and benefits that said legislation has established with a global, albeit sectorial, scope is respected—articles 11 and 74 of the Political Constitution and 2, 11, 14, 19, 20, and 586 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo)—; therefore, in the case of municipal servants, part of a public employment relationship, if Law No. 6835 came to grant them rights, taking into account their essential, indisputable condition as public servants, as human resources subject to the fulfillment of the ends and functions, constitutionally and legally imposed on the Municipal Corporation, those advantageous, statutory legal situations must be fully recognized to them, due to their current service relationship, which is of Public Law. VII. Failing to carry out an interpretation in the aforementioned manner would mean failing to apply more beneficial legislation for municipal servants; in such a way that it is not contrary to numerals 169 and 170 of the Political Constitution, since it does not overlook the autonomy assigned to Municipal Corporations, but rather imposes inescapable justice and equality, in an aspect that integrates the public employment relationship; namely: the recognition of accumulated seniority in service to the Public Administration, as a whole, of which the Municipalities also form part; given that it is defined that the right incorporated by Law No. 6835, to No. 2106, is a benefit applicable to all public servants who have accumulated time of service for the State, for the purposes of their salary being increased annually, and not a prerogative extended, capriciously, that harms municipal competence, much less its power of self-government. On the other hand, the constitutional norms on the Municipal Regime do not exempt the Corporations from complying with the obligations imposed by ordinary legislation; which, in the case of Law No. 6835, it is reiterated, does not harm the degree of administrative decentralization that the defendant possesses; submitted, therefore, to having to respect the seniority of its servants, accumulated within and outside of it. Following the aforementioned, ordinals 191 and 192 of the Magna Carta cannot constitute any obstacle that prevents recognizing the years of service, in accordance with said Law 6835, because although the latter came to reform and add to the Public Administration Salary Law, which, in turn, is complemented by the Civil Service Statute (Estatuto de Servicio Civil), from the text of the former it follows that its effects go beyond the servants subject to the direct statutory regime; besides which, the latter has general effects and scope (See the rulings of the Constitutional Chamber, Nos. 1696 and 3285 at 3:30 p.m., of June 23, and at 3:00 p.m., of October 30, both of 1992 and respectively). VIII. If in the exercise of the powers that the Law grants it—article 142 of the Municipal Code—, the Municipal Executive of San José, there is a Descriptive Manual of Positions (Manual Descriptivo de Puestos), that is a situation that, as explained supra, cannot undermine the plaintiff's right to have the intended annual increases recognized; given that this internal regulation cannot be used to disapply the minimum content of rights that protects the service relationship of all Public Administration servants; in the specific point, of the years of service—articles 11 of the Political Constitution and 11 of the General Law of Public Administration—. This legal situation means that the thesis upheld by this Chamber must clearly prevail, in its resolution No. 8, at 9:50 a.m., of January 13, 1993, to the effect that: "IV. The autonomy of municipal corporations, contemplated in articles 169 and 170 of the Political Constitution, cannot be undermined by the application of Law 6835, since it is referred to, as territorial entities that they are, the administration of local services and interests for the promotion of the integral development of the respective cantons, a field within which the labor policies that, through specific legislation, the State sovereignly imposes are not foreseen. Nor does this in any way obstruct the tasks that, regarding the elaboration of the descriptive manual of jobs, article 142 of the Municipal Code grants to the Municipal Executive...". In this case, it is not a matter, then, of forcing the defendant Corporation to adopt the Salary Scale (Escala de Salarios) or the Descriptive Manual of Positions referenced in the Public Administration Salary Law; but simply that it must proceed to recognize a benefit that, in an equal and general manner, that regulation grants to all public servants; namely, the recognition of accumulated seniority in service to the Public Administration, that is, in the case at hand, the time worked by the plaintiff at the M. de O. P. y T., for purposes of the annual increases. Nor is it a matter of forcing the Corporation to make disbursements not authorized by the Legal System, against numeral 67 of the Municipal Code, because the basis for that expense has full normative support, as has been explained, and rather, not recognizing the benefit under discussion would constitute a manifest unjust enrichment (enriquecimiento sin causa), in favor of the Administration, to the direct detriment of those servants who find themselves in a situation like the one described and, thereby, illegitimate and illicit. IX. Finally, regarding the allegation of the objection that a retroactive effect is intended to be given to the seniority benefit, since in the defendant Corporation it was recognized starting in 1977, thereby contravening numerals 49, 169, and 170 of the Political Constitution, the appellant is also not correct in this regard. First of all, among others, in judgment No. 66, at 9:40 a.m., of June 6, 1990, it was clearly established, in what is pertinent: "...This is another nuance of the reform under study, which was the object of discussion that was settled with the resolution of the Civil Service Tribunal at 3:55 p.m. of August 21, 1986, when in the relevant part it stated: '...III. Merits. This Tribunal does not share the criterion of the General Directorate of Civil Service nor that of the Attorney General's Office of the Republic. The reasons are the following: Just as the legislator recorded in the statement of motives of Law 6835-82, article 12 subsection d), that regulation was issued to repair an injustice, said in the legislator's own words, "it is intended to correct a great injustice." If that was the intention, it could never have endorsed a criterion that precisely allows the injustice to persist. The meaning that the sentence of the Law that states: "This provision has no retroactive character" has is that of not allowing the worker to whom it is applied to seek payment with effect prior to the Law...'. It is observed from this normative provision that precisely the Legislator wanted to avoid affecting the current budget with an obligation for settled periods, and that same sense is what the norm invoked by the plaintiff has, because otherwise the reparation or correction of the injustice that was the cause motivating its issuance would become illusory...". Indeed, for what corresponds to the recognition of seniority, it is clear that the norm has effects towards the past, but in relation to the payment of the recognition of seniority for the effects of the annual increases, it only governs towards the future, with which it does not affect the national budget that in our country governs annually...". Secondly, and attending to the recognition made in favor of the plaintiff, of a seniority accumulated prior to the entry into force of the system that established the payment of the years of service in the defendant Corporation; it is worth noting that the non-existence of that incentive, on dates prior to those claimed, is not an obstacle that curbs the legitimate aspirations of the plaintiff; because, as just expressed, all accumulated seniority is recognized, but its payment governs towards the future, based on the current Salary Scale—see, judgment of this Chamber No. 81, at 9:00 a.m., of July 5, 1989, Considering VII—. X. In view of all that has been set forth, it is proper to confirm the appealed ruling." 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 General Salary Law, they would not have made other statements, so if they did make them by expressing that it will govern "...for the entire Public Sector..." and safeguarded the rights acquired through Collective Bargaining Agreements that may have occurred in some areas of that Sector (a practice that already leads to conceiving it as general), what must necessarily be concluded is what the Chamber deduced, that is, the extensive application. Hence, Articles 1, 4, 5, and 12, subsection d) of the Public Administration Salary Law were not violated in the ruling of the ad-quem, as claimed by the appellant, but, quite the contrary, correctly applied to the case, since the recognition of the time served by the plaintiffs in the Public Sector, for purposes of the salary increase for seniority (anualidades), was precisely at issue. Among others, the resolutions of this same Chamber can be consulted, Nos. 58, at 14 and 30 hours, of April 30, 1986, 82, at 10 and 10 hours, of July 5, 1989, and 181, at 10 and 10 hours, of October 2, 1991...". V. Under this line of jurisprudential thought outlined, it is legally undeniable that the personnel of the M. de S. J., forms part of the Public Sector, for example, Public Administration, under the terms of Articles 1, both of the General Law of Public Administration and 4 of the Regulatory Law of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction. On the other hand, taking into account its condition as a legal entity of Public Law, despite its functional independence and self-government, Law No. 6835 is applicable to it, based on the fact that the lack of coverage, regarding the Civil Service regime, cannot signify an obstacle to recognizing the accumulated seniority in the service of the State (doctrine and jurisprudence of the single employer); because the incentive of annual increases does not directly come from that statutory regulation. Based on this, it must be understood a contrario sensu that the autonomy enjoyed by municipal corporations has to do with the exercise of their governmental and functional powers, for the fulfillment of the purposes that are their own; in addition to a normative power, referring to the aspects submitted, these indeed, to their exclusive competence. Those powers and their scope, granted to the Municipalities, are so in a strict sense, and consist of being able to issue rules to develop the object and to achieve the specialized purposes that were assigned to them, in the specific case, by the Municipal Code and related laws. That is, we are talking about an organic specialty, by function and by subject matter, which delimits the degree of autonomy of these other territorial, minor entities, determines a space of action within which they are autonomous, but no further. That sphere can be, more or less, broad, depending on the nature of the service and the real patrimonial possibilities of the entity. Outside of it, it is incapable of self-regulating and its regulation must yield to the ordinary legislation of the State -greater entity- which is always of general scope and application (erga omnes). VI. The foregoing implies, that with respect to the public employment regime, in force in the defendant. It must be taken into account that, the employees who work for it, are human resources that it uses in its functions, to fulfill its competencies, in the exercise of the respective powers; and for such reason, they are covered by that of self-government; but also, when it comes to ordinary rules, issued by the Legislative Assembly, that do not regulate, in an express and typical manner, that exclusive competence, but, differently, abstract and general situations, that affect the municipal corporation in the same way as they do with respect to any other similar legal subject, who is in the factual assumptions that it determines, that administrative autonomy cannot relieve it from respecting and complying with the requirements of that legal order. Therefore, for the provisions issued by the Council or, as the case may be, by the Municipal Executive, to prevail over ordinary legislation that opposes them, it is necessary that, in them, the minimum content of the rights and benefits that that legislation has established with a global, albeit sectoral, scope be respected -Articles 11 and 74 of the Political Constitution and 2, 11, 14, 19, 20 and 586 of the Labor Code-; therefore, in the case of municipal servants, part of a public employment relationship, if Law No. 6835 came to grant them rights, taking into account their essential, indisputable condition as public servants, as human resources subject to the fulfillment of the purposes and functions, constitutionally and legally imposed on the Municipal Corporation, those advantageous, statutory legal situations must be fully recognized to them, due to their current service relationship, which is of Public Law. VII. Not carrying out an interpretation in the manner cited above would mean failing to apply more beneficial legislation for municipal servants; in such a way that it is not contrary to numerals 169 and 170 of the Political Constitution, since it does not overlook the autonomy assigned to Municipal Corporations, but rather imposes inescapable justice and equality, in an aspect that forms part of the public employment relationship; namely: the recognition of the accumulated seniority in the service of the Public Administration, as a whole, of which the Municipalities also form part; since the right incorporated by Law No. 6835 to No. 2106 is defined as a benefit applicable to all public servants who have accumulated time of service for the State, for the purposes of having their salary increased annually, and not a capriciously extended prerogative that harms municipal competence, much less its power of self-government. Moreover, the constitutional norms on the Municipal Regime do not exempt the Corporations from complying with the obligations imposed by ordinary legislation; which, in the case of Law No. 6835, it is reiterated, does not harm the degree of administrative decentralization that the defendant has; submitted, therefore, to having to respect the seniority of its servants, accumulated within and outside of it. Following the aforementioned, ordinals 191 and 192 of the Magna Carta cannot constitute any obstacle that prevents recognizing the seniority (anualidades), according to that Law 6835, because although it came to reform and add to the Public Administration Salary Law; which, in turn, is complemented by the Civil Service Statute, from the text of the first it follows that its effects go beyond the servants subject to the direct statutory regime; in addition to which, the latter has general effects and scope (See the votes of the Constitutional Chamber, Nos. 1696 and 3285 at 15:30 hours, of June 23, and at 15 hours, of October 30, both of 1992 and respectively). VIII. If in the exercise of the powers that the Law grants it -Article 142 of the Municipal Code-, the Municipal Executive of San José, has a Descriptive Manual of Positions, that is a situation that, as explained supra, cannot undermine the right of the plaintiff to be recognized the intended annual increases; given that, that internal regulation, cannot be used to disapply the minimum content of rights that protects the service relationship of all servants of the Public Administration; on the specific point, of seniority (anualidades) -Articles 11 of the Political Constitution and 11 of the General Law of Public Administration-. This legal situation means that the thesis held by this Chamber, in its resolution No. 8, at 9 and 50 hours, of January 13, 1993, must clearly prevail, in the sense that: "IV. The autonomy of municipal corporations, contemplated in Articles 169 and 170 of the Political Constitution, cannot be undermined by the application of Law 6835, since it is referred, as territorial entities they are, to the administration of local services and interests for the promotion of the integral development of the respective cantons, a field within which the labor policies that, through specific legislation, the State sovereignly imposes are not foreseen. Nor does this hinder, in any way, the tasks that, regarding the preparation of the descriptive manual of jobs, Article 142 of the Municipal Code grants to the Municipal Executive...". In the case, it is not then about forcing the defendant Corporation, to adopt the Salary Scale or the Descriptive Manual of Positions, referred to by the Public Administration Salary Law; but, simply, that it must proceed to recognize a benefit that, equally and generally, that regulation grants to all public servants; namely, the recognition of the accumulated seniority in the service of the Public Administration, that is, in the case at hand, the time worked by the plaintiff before the M. DE O. P. Y T., for the purposes of annual increases. Nor is it about forcing the Corporation, to make expenditures not authorized by the Legal Order, contrary to numeral 67 of the Municipal Code, because the basis for that expense has full normative support, as has been explained and, rather, not recognizing the benefit under discussion would constitute a manifest unjust enrichment, in favor of the Administration, to the direct detriment of those servants who are in a situation like the one described and, therefore, illegitimate and unlawful. IX. Finally, regarding the allegation of the objection that the benefit of seniority is intended to be given a retroactive effect, since in the defendant Corporation it was recognized, starting from 1977, thereby contradicting numerals 49, 169 and 170 of the Political Constitution, the appellant is not correct in this either. In the first place, among others, in judgment No. 66, at 9:40 hours, of June 6, 1990, it was clearly established, in what is relevant: "...This is another nuance of the reform under study, which was the subject of discussion, which came to be settled with the resolution of the Civil Service Tribunal at 15:55 hours on August 21, 1986, when it stated in due course: "...III. Merits. This Tribunal does not share the criterion of the General Directorate of Civil Service nor that of the General Attorney's Office of the Republic. The reasons are the following: Just as the legislator recorded in the statement of motives of Law 6835-82, Article 12 subsection d), that regulation was issued to repair an injustice, said in the legislator's own words, 'it is intended to correct a great injustice.' If that was the intention, they could never have fostered a criterion that precisely causes the injustice to remain. The meaning of the sentence of the Law that states: 'This provision does not have a retroactive character' is to not allow the worker to whom it was applied to claim payment with effect prior to the Law...". It is observed from this normative provision that precisely the Legislator wanted to avoid affecting the current budget with an obligation for settled periods and that same sense is the one held by the rule invoked by the plaintiff, because otherwise the repair or correction of the injustice that was the cause that motivated its issuance would become illusory...". Indeed, regarding the recognition of seniority, it is clear that the norm has effects towards the past but, in relation to the payment of the recognition of seniority for the effects of annual increases, it only governs towards the future, thereby, it does not affect the national budget that in our country governs annually...". Secondly and attending to the recognition made in favor of the plaintiff, of an accumulated seniority prior to the entry into force of the system that established the payment of the seniority (anualidades) in the defendant Corporation; it should be noted that, the nonexistence of that incentive, on dates prior to those intended, is not an obstacle that halts the legitimate aspirations of the plaintiff; because, as has just been expressed, all accumulated seniority is recognized, but its payment governs towards the future, based on the current Salary Scale -see, judgment of this Chamber No. 81, at 9 hours, of July 5, 1989, Considering VII-. X. By virtue of all the foregoing, it is appropriate to confirm the appealed ruling."</p> </HTML>

"I. La representante de la MUNICIPALIDAD demandada interpone recurso de casación contra la sentencia dictada por el Tribunal Superior de Trabajo, Sección Segunda a las diez horas veinte minutos del veinticuatro de febrero de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro, en donde se confirmó el fallo de primera instancia dictado por el Juzgado Primero de Trabajo de San José, pero aclarándolo en el sentido de que al trabajador debía reconocérsele el pago de trece anualidades, ya que el tope máximo conferido por el ordenamiento jurídico es de treinta anualidades. II. Los fundamentos de este recurso, se basan primordialmente en el hecho de que, según la recurrente, la M. DE S. J. es un ente autónomo que goza de autonomía administrativa y política, ello significa, que la LEY DE SALARIOS DE LA ADMINISTRACION PUBLICA no es aplicable a entes municipales, ya que dicha normativa se circunscribe al PODER EJECUTIVO y otras instituciones autónomas adscritas a ese régimen. Debido a esta circunstancia, aduce la demandada, que en materia de salarios la normativa aplicable a los Municipios es la escala de sueldos y el Manual Descriptivo de Empleos, aprobados por cada Concejo Municipal, por lo que el cálculo de anualidades pretendido por el actor no es aplicable a ella, debido al principio de legalidad que la ubica en otro régimen legislativo en materia de anualidades. III. A efecto de practicar el análisis de los reparos formulados por el recurrente, resulta necesario transcribir, en lo que es de interés, la sentencia de esta Sala, Nº 123, de las 9.10 horas del 7 de agosto de 1991, que de la Constitución Política, tienen independencia y libertad, para darse su sistema de gobierno, que comprende determinada facultad legislativa, pero únicamente referida a la actividad no reglada. El fundamento de esta libertad autonómica, está en la especialidad que caracteriza la función, que originó su creación. Esa facultad legislativa del ente autónomo, en ningún caso le podrá permitir legislar en forma contraria a la Constitución o a la Ley, porque la función legislativa, está reservada en nuestro medio, a la Asamblea Legislativa. La actividad de gobierno, que tienen los entes autónomos y las universidades estatales, así como también las demás instituciones de Educación Superior, a que se refiere el artículo 84 constitucional, lo es en sentido estricto. Consistirá en dictar sus propias normas, para desarrollar el objeto y alcanzar los fines especializados que le fueron asignados por la ley que las originó. La doctrina autonómica, plasmada en el antes citado artículo 188 de la Constitución Política, no otorgó a los entes autónomos una facultad plena de legislar. Sin embargo, como han sido creados por el Estado, para que realicen un servicio especial, que constituye toda la actividad del ente, y el buen funcionamiento del servicio, el fin y la razón de ser, en el desarrollo de la especialidad, gozan de autonomía, la que les permite libertad e independencia, pero sin salirse de los límites, porque si se le permitiera ir más allá, los beneficiarios del servicio, no tendrían defensa contra sus irregularidades. Nos encontramos ante una especialidad orgánica, por la función y por la materia, que nos da la cualidad de la autonomía de los entes y determina una esfera dentro de lo que es autónomo, pero no más allá. La esfera de acción, puede ser más o menos amplia, según la naturaleza del servicio y las posibilidades patrimoniales del ente. Fuera de esa esfera, es incapaz de autolegislar y los actos que realice en ese sentido, son nulos de pleno derecho. Sobre el tema, puede consultarse al uruguayo Domichelli Alberto. Los entes autónomos, páginas 293 y siguientes, citado en sentencia de Casación número 94 de catorce horas, treinta minutos del once de setiembre de mil novecientos cincuenta y ocho...". IV. Es un hecho claro, aducido por la recurrente, que existe una autonomía a favor de las Corporaciones Municipales, tal y como lo establece el artículo 170 de la Constitución Política. No obstante, con respecto a la esfera de aplicación de la Ley Nº 6835, de 22 de diciembre de 1982, esta Sala ha externado reiteradamente su criterio, sobre en sentencias como la Nº 180, de las 15.10 horas, del 25 de agosto de 1993; que en lo cabe resaltar dispuso: "I. 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 su 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 poner de manifiesto la vigencia, en toda la Administración Pública, de la teoría "del Estado como patrono único", 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, con lo que se busca evitar discriminaciones chocantes. 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 la Ley General de Salarios de la Administración Pública, N° 2106, de 9 de octubre de 1957, y sus reformas, que se dictó de acuerdo con previsiones del Estatuto de Servicio Civil en materia de salarios del Poder Ejecutivo, debe ser general, porque, además 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 cual no puede desconocerse, no sólo por la forma expresa de las normas, sino porque, como se dijo, éstas no son sino parte de la natural evolución de las ideas sobre la materia, las 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 cuenta 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 algunas áreas de ese Sector (cuya práctica lleva a concebirlo ya como general), lo que necesariamente tiene que concluirse es lo que dedujo la Sala, o sea la aplicación extensiva. De ahí que, los artículos 1, 4, 5 y 12, inciso d) de la Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública, no fueron quebrantados en el fallo del ad-quem, como lo reclama el recurrente, sino, todo lo contrario, correctamente aplicados al caso, al estar de por medio, precisamente, el reconocimiento del tiempo servido por los actores, en el Sector Público, para efectos del incremento salarial por anualidades. Entre otras, pueden consultarse las resoluciones de esta misma Sala, Nos. 58, de las 14 y 30 horas, del 30 de abril de 1986, 82, de las 10 y 10 horas, del 5 de julio de 1989 y 181, de las 10 y 10 horas, del 2 de octubre de 1991...". V. Bajo esta línea de pensamiento jurisprudencial esbozado, jurídicamente es innegable que, el personal de la M. de S. J., forma parte del Sector Público, verbigracia, Administración Pública, en los términos de los artículos 1°, tanto de la Ley General de la Administración Pública como 4° de la Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso-Administrativa. Por otro lado, tomando en cuenta su condición de persona jurídica de Derecho Público, no empece su independencia funcional y de autogobierno, le resulta aplicable la Ley Nº 6835, partiendo del hecho de que la falta de cobertura, respecto del régimen de Servicio Civil, no puede significar un obstáculo para reconocer la antigüedad acumulada al servicio del Estado (doctrina y jurisprudencia del patrono único); porque no es directamente de esa normativa estatutaria, de donde proviene el incentivo de los aumentos anuales. Con base a esto, debe entenderse a contrario sensu que la autonomía de que gozan las corporaciones municipales, tiene que ver con el ejercicio de sus potestades gubernativas y funcionales, para el cumplimiento de los fines que les son propios; amén de una potestad de orden normativo, referida a los aspectos sometidos, éstos sí, a su exclusiva competencia. Esas potestades y sus alcances, otorgadas a las Municipalidades, lo son en sentido estricto, y consisten en poder dictar normas para desarrollar el objeto y para alcanzar los fines especializados que les fueron asignados, en el caso concreto, por el Código Municipal y las leyes conexas. O sea, estamos hablando de una especialidad orgánica, por la función y por la materia, que delimita el grado de la autonomía de esos otros entes territoriales, menores, determina un espacio de acción dentro del cual son autónomos, pero no más allá. Esa esfera puede ser, más o menos, amplia, según la naturaleza del servicio y las posibilidades patrimoniales reales del ente. Fuera de ella es incapaz de autonormarse y su regulación debe ceder frente a la legislación ordinaria del Estado -ente mayor- que es siempre de alcances y de aplicación general (erga omnes). VI. Lo anterior implica, que con respecto al régimen de empleo público, vigente en la demandada. Ha de tomarse en cuenta que, los empleados que laboran para ella, son recursos humanos que utiliza en sus funciones, para dar cumplimiento a sus competencias, en el ejercicio de las respectivas potestades; y por tal razón, se encuentran cubiertos por la de autogobierno; pero también, cuando se trata de normas ordinarias, emitidas por la Asamblea Legislativa, que no regulan, de manera situaciones abstractas y generales, que inciden sobre la corporación municipal de igual modo como lo hacen respecto de cualquier otro sujeto jurídico similar, que se encuentra en los presupuestos de hecho que la misma determina, esa autonomía administrativa no puede relevarla de respetar y de dar cumplimiento a las exigencias de ese ordenamiento. Por eso, para que las disposiciones emanadas del Concejo o, en su caso, del Ejecutivo Municipal, puedan prevalecer sobre la legislación ordinaria, que se les oponga, es necesario que, en ellas, se respete el contenido mínimo de los derechos y de los beneficios que esa legislación ha establecido con un alcance global, si bien sectorial, -artículos 11 y 74 de la Constitución Política y 2, 11, 14, 19, 20 y 586 del Código de Trabajo-; por lo que, en el caso de los servidores municipales, parte de una relación de empleo público, si la Ley Nº 6835, les vino a conceder derechos, tomando en cuenta su condición esencial, indiscutible, de servidores públicos, como recursos humanos sometidos al cumplimiento de los fines y de las funciones, constitucional y legalmente impuestos a la Corporación Municipal, esas situaciones jurídicas de ventaja, estatutarias, deben serles plenamente reconocidas, por su relación de servicio vigente, que es de Derecho Público. VII. De no realizar una interpretación en la forma antes citada, se estaría dejando de aplicar legislación más beneficiosa para los servidores municipales; de tal manera que no resulta contraria a los numerales 169 y 170 de la Constitución Política, pues no pasa por alto la autonomía que se le asigna a las Corporaciones Municipales, sino que impone la ineludible justicia y a la igualdad, en un aspecto que integra la relación de empleo público; a saber: el reconocimiento de la antigüedad acumulada al servicio de la Administración Pública, como un todo, de la cual forman parte también las Municipalidades; ya que se define que el derecho incorporado por la Ley Nº 6835, a la Nº 2106, es un beneficio aplicable a todos los servidores públicos que hayan acumulado tiempo de servicio para el Estado, a los efectos de que su salario se incremente anualmente, y no una prerrogativa extendida, antojadizamente, que lesione la competencia municipal, tanto menos su potestad de autogobierno. Por otra parte, las normas constitucionales sobre el Régimen Municipal, no exceptúan a las Corporaciones de cumplir con las obligaciones que impone la legislación ordinaria; la cual, en el caso de la Ley Nº 6835, se reitera, no lesiona el grado de descentralización administrativa con que cuenta la demandada; sometida, por ende, a tener que respetar la antigüedad de sus servidores, acumulada dentro y fuera de la misma. Siguiendo lo antes dicho, los ordinales 191 y 192 de la Carta Magna, no pueden constituir obstáculo alguno que impida reconocer las anualidades, conforme esa Ley 6835, porque si bien ésta vino a reformar y a adicionar la Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública; la que, a su vez, se complementa con el Estatuto de Servicio Civil, del texto de la primera se desprende que sus efectos van más allá de los servidores sujetos al directo régimen estatutario; amén de que, este último, tiene efectos y alcances generales (Véanse los votos de la Sala Constitucional, Nos. 1696 y 3285 de las 15:30 horas, del 23 de junio, y de las 15 horas, del 30 de octubre, ambos de 1992 y respectivamente). VIII. Si en ejercicio de las facultades que la Ley le concede -artículo 142 del Código Municipal-, el Ejecutivo Municipal de San José, existe un Manual Descriptivo de Puestos, esa es una situación que, como se explicó supra, no puede enervar el derecho del actor a que se le reconozcan los aumentos anuales pretendidos; dado que, esa normativa interna, no puede utilizarse para desaplicar el contenido mínimo de derechos que protege la relación de servicio de todos los servidores de la Administración Pública; en el punto concreto, de las anualidades -artículos 11 de la Constitución Política y 11 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública-. Esta situación jurídica significa que a todas luces ha de prevalecer la tesis sostenida por esta Sala, en su resolución Nº 8, de las 9 y 50 horas, del 13 de enero de 1993, en el sentido de que: "IV. La autonomía de las corporaciones municipales, contemplada en los artículos 169 y 170 de la Constitución Política, no puede verse enervada por la aplicación de la Ley 6835, ya que la misma está referida como entes territoriales que son, a la administración de los servicios e intereses locales para la promoción del desarrollo integral de los respectivos cantones, campo dentro del cual no se prevén las políticas laborales que, mediante determinada legislación, impone soberanamente el Estado. Tampoco con ello se obstaculizan, en modo alguno, las tareas que, sobre la elaboración del manual descriptivo de empleos, le otorga el artículo 142 del Código Municipal al Ejecutivo Municipal...". En la especie, no se trata entonces de obligar a la Corporación demandada, a que adopte la Escala de Salarios o el Manual Descriptivo de Puestos, a que se refiere la Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública; sino, simplemente, a que debe proceder a reconocer un beneficio que, de manera igual y general, otorga esa normativa a todos los servidores públicos; a saber, el reconocimiento de la antigüedad acumulada al servicio de la Administración Pública, o sea en el caso de marras, el tiempo laborado por el actor ante el M. DE O. P. Y T., para efectos de los aumentos anuales. Tampoco se trata de obligar a la Corporación, a realizar erogaciones no autorizadas por el Ordenamiento Jurídico, a contrapelo del numeral 67 del Código Municipal, pues el fundamento de ese gasto, tiene pleno asidero normativo, según se ha dejado un manifiesto enriquecimiento sin causa, a favor de la Administración, en perjuicio directo de aquellos servidores que se encuentran en una situación como la descrita y, por ahí, ilegítimo e ilícito. IX. Por último, en lo respectivo al alegato del reparo de que se le pretende dar un efecto retroactivo al beneficio de la antigüedad, pues en la Corporación demandada fue reconocido, a partir de 1977, por lo que se contrariarían los numerales 49, 169 y 170 de la Constitución Política, tampoco en esto lleva razón el recurrente. En primer término, entre otras, en la sentencia Nº 66, de las 9:40 horas, del 6 de junio de 1990, se dejó claramente establecido, en lo que interesa: "...Este es otro matiz de la reforma en estudio, que fue objeto de discusión la que vino a ser saldada con la resolución del Tribunal del Servicio Civil de las 15:55 horas del 21 de agosto de 1986, cuando en lo conducente expuso: "...III. Fondo. Este Tribunal no comparte ni el criterio de la Dirección General del Servicio Civil ni el de la Procuraduría General de la República. Las razones son las siguientes: Tal y como lo consignó el legislador en la se emitió para reparar una injusticia, dicho en las propias palabras del legislador, "se pretende corregir una gran injusticia". Si esa fue la pretensión, jamás podría haber prohijado un criterio que precisamente hace que la injusticia se mantenga. El sentido que tiene la oración de la Ley que dispone: "Esta disposición no tiene carácter retroactivo" es la de no permitir que el trabajador a quien se le aplicara pretendiera el pago con efecto anterior a la Ley...". Se observa de esta disposición normativa que precisamente el Legislador quiso evitar afectar el presupuesto vigente con obligación de períodos liquidados y ese mismo sentido es el que tiene la norma invocada por el actor, porque de lo contrario se haría ilusoria la reparación o corrección de la injusticia que fue la causa que motivó su emisión...". En efecto, para lo correspondiente al reconocimiento de la antigüedad claro que la norma tiene efectos hacia el pasado pero, en relación con el pago del reconocimiento de la antigüedad para los efectos de los aumentos anuales, únicamente rige hacia el futuro, con lo que, no afecta el presupuesto nacional que en nuestro país rige anualmente...". En segundo lugar y atendiendo al reconocimiento que se hace en favor del actor, de una antigüedad acumulada con anterioridad a la entrada en vigencia del sistema que estableció el pago de las anualidades en la Corporación demandada; cabe señalar que, la inexistencia de ese incentivo, en fechas anteriores a las que se pretende, no es un obstáculo que frene las legítimas aspiraciones del demandante; pues, como se acaba de futuro, con base en la Escala de Salarios vigente -véase, la sentencia de esta Sala Nº 81, de las 9 horas, del 5 de julio de 1989, Considerando VII-. X. En mérito de todo lo expuesto, procede confirmar el fallo recurrido."