Key legal question
Whether placing the appellant at 95% of the salary band violated gender equality and required placement at 100%.
Extracted holding
The placement at 95% was permissible because the resulting salary remained above the previously determined non-discriminatory old salary.
Extracted reasoning
The court relied on its earlier case law on the same salary reform: the transfer was to be based on the former non-discriminatory salary, and a temporary lower placement than that of new hires was constitutionally tolerable.