The Administrative Court has ruled that the salary must correspond to the actual duties performed by the officer on a continuous basis, based on reports from his own station commanders. The High Court of Justice of Madrid has sided with an officer of the National Police Corps who was claiming the pay differences arising from the duties he actually performed. The ruling overturns the administrative silence of the Directorate General of the Police and recognizes the officer's right to receive the destination, specific, and productivity allowances corresponding to a special operational unit for public safety.
The litigation began after a formal request from the police officer, who stated that, despite being officially assigned a regular position, he had been continuously performing specialized duties in a more demanding brigade for almost two years. The General Directorate of the Police, represented by the State Attorney's Office, rejected the claim, arguing that the salary paid matched the amount recorded in their computer databases and that there was no official, regulated appointment.
The Administration's position was refuted by the evidence presented in the case file. The court highlights the relevance of two official certifications issued by the commanding officers of the officer's assigned police station. Both the report from the Acting Chief Inspector and the certification from the Commissioner unanimously corroborated that the officer provided uninterrupted service in the special brigade throughout the entire period in question.
The court ruling bases its decision on the principle of equal pay and the established legal doctrine regarding the de facto performance of duties in the public sector. The judges clarify that the lack of a formal assignment does not exempt the Administration from paying the salary corresponding to the work actually performed. The court emphasizes that the commanding officer was aware of and condoned this officer's situation in a unit characterized by exceptional danger, hardship, and technical expertise.
The court ruling delves into the nature of the specific supplement, clarifying that it is a purely objective remuneration component linked to the unique conditions of the position and not to the rank of the civil servant holding it. For this reason, the court rules that the financial reimbursement must include both the specific and general components of this supplement. State budgetary regulations prohibit the payment of these differences when the work is occasional, a scenario that is ruled out in this case due to the plaintiff's long-standing and continuous service.
The operative part of the judgment orders the General Directorate of the Police to pay the exact difference between the amounts received and those that should have been received in the special unit during the period of conflict. The resulting sum will accrue the corresponding legal interest from the date of the original administrative claim. Furthermore, the court orders the formal recording of this historical performance in the officer's personnel file through the internal computer application. Since the officer appeared in his own name and on his own behalf, the Court has declared, ex officio, the exemption from court costs.
