JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)November 26, 1997

T-608 de 1997

The official text of this ruling is in Spanish and is shown as published by the Colombian authorities.

Reporting justice José Gregorio Hernández Galindo

✓Claimant Luis Yesid Perez Alarcon

✓
Topic · hard data
Der. A La Igualdad. Discriminacion En El Pago De Cesantias Parciales. Concedida.
01

Topics and subtopics of the ruling

✓What the ruling decides and analyzes, as indexed by the Court's case-law reporter's office. Each topic links to every decision that addresses it.

Acto Administrativo
  • Expedición por autoridad inexistente
Derecho A La Igualdad
  • Discriminación en el pago de cesantías parciales
2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
02

What it decided

This decision records no constitutional review holdings. This is common in tutela rulings and orders, where the decision does not concern a legal provision.
·

Operative part (Resuelve)

✓Verbatim text of the decision, as it appears in the ruling. It complements the structured holdings above.

See the operative part (5 points)
  1. Primero. REVOCANSE los fallos proferidos por el Juzgado
  2. Segundo. Laboral y la Sala Laboral del Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial de Cúcuta, mediante los cuales se negó el amparo solicitado por LUIS YESID PEREZ ALARCON.
  3. Segundo. CONCEDESE la tutela del derecho a la igualdad del solicitante y, en consecuencia, ordénase al Director del Hospital "Erasmo Meoz" de Cúcuta que, si ya no lo hubiere hecho, proceda a pagar, en un término no superior a las cuarenta y ocho (48) horas contadas a partir de la notificación del presente fallo, el valor de la cesantía parcial reconocida a LUIS YESID PEREZ ALARCON, con la indexación correspondiente.
  4. Si no existiere partida presupuestal suficiente, el plazo indicado se concede para iniciar las gestiones pertinentes, de acuerdo con la ley, para que el pago se efectúe de manera inmediata.
  5. Tercero. DESE cumplimiento a lo previsto en el artículo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991.
Verbatim text · source: operative part of the ruling
03

The bench that decided

We distinguish who appears in the ruling (signature, vote or concurrence) from who probably sat on the Court on that date. The difference is shown by color and shape.

04

How it connects

Each decision is a node in the case-law network: it cites some and is cited by others. Follow the threads.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
constitutional review unification tutela

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.