50. In the complaints, it is argued that said provision justified payment of lost wages when the absences of the agents of the General Tax Directorate were caused by meteorological phenomena and in instances of duly proven force majeure.68 They contended that the existence, validity and application of Circular No. 5/77 cited by the administrative authorities to deny the their claim, did not prevent the recognition demanded by them, inasmuch as said circular sets forth that wages lost because of absences should not be paid, except when a provision of law provides otherwise.69 They claimed that Article 14.c of the Rules on Leaves of Absence, Justifications and Exemptions of the National Public Administration specifically provides for said exception under the concept of force majeure.70 51. Consequently, the purpose of Mrs. Perrone’s complaint was to demand payment of lost wages from July 6, 1976 to October 19, 1982, for the leaves of absence that were caused and were not enjoyed nor paid, as well as recognition of position on the seniority roster for purposes of workers’ and other benefits.71 The aim of Mr. Preckel’s complaint was to demand payment for uncollected wages from July 6, 1976 to February 4, 1985, participation in the Stimulus Fund, unused leaves of absence and recognition of seniority for purposes of workers’ and other benefits.72 52. On February 6 and 12, 1992, the Federal Judge denied the claims of Mrs. Perrone and Mr. Preckel, respectively.73 The Judge ruled as follows: In truth it must be admitted that it was not the D.G.I. that ordered the arrest, subsequently found to be unjustified, and that it was the P.E.N. itself through the Ministry of the Interior, who carried out and brought about the state of affairs, which harmed the plaintiff. (…) Circular 5/77 and the Regulation on Administrative Investigations (art. 39a) established that, non-performance of duties should not be paid for. (…) It is the doctrine of the Supreme Court that, barring an express and specific provision for the particular instance, payment of wages for unperformed duties is not proper. (…) (…) it is evident that the investigation conducted at the administrative agency in no way had any bearing on bringing about harm to the plaintiff and it is also clear that the provisions of circular 5/77 and Article 39 subsection A of the aforementioned Regulation precluded recovery or payment of lost wages; these precepts were not contested by the plaintiff who, furthermore, did not ask for compensation for the losses suffered based on her unjustified detention (…). Moreover, it is difficult to accept, even though the D.G.I. belongs to the National State, that the claim, which could have been pursued based on the principle of “iura novit curia,” as an action for damages (…) included “in integrum” the National State in its governing function; [… continuation] 67 Decree 3413 of 1979. Available at: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/15000-19999/19213/texact.htm 68 Complaint before federal judge, June 24, 1988. Judicial proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Elba Clotilde Perrone. Complaint before federal judge, June 24, 1988. Judicial proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Juan Preckel. 69 Complaint before federal judge, June 24, 1988. Judicial proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Elba Clotilde Perrone. Complaint before federal judge, June 24, 1988. Judicial proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Juan Preckel. 70 Complaint before federal judge, June 24, 1988. Judicial proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Elba Clotilde Perrone. Complaint before federal judge, June 24, 1988. Judicial proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Juan Preckel. 71 Complaint before federal judge, June 24, 1988. Judicial proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Elba Clotilde Perrone. 72 Complaint before federal judge, June 24, 1988. Judicial proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Juan Preckel. Ruling of the Federal Judge, February 12, 1992. Judicial proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Elba Clotilde Perrone. Ruling of the Federal Judge, February 6, 1992. Judicial proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Juan Preckel. 73 10