The Administrative Court rejects the payment of psychological allowance to an employee due to an error by the agent

The Administrative Court in Al-Ahsa Governorate issued a final ruling rejecting a lawsuit filed by a healthcare worker at a mental health hospital. The worker had sought retroactive payment of 30% of his outstanding "psychiatric allowance." The court's decision was based on procedural grounds related to the filing of the lawsuit, not on the merits of the case itself. This ruling reinforces an important legal principle regarding the accuracy of procedures in administrative courts.

Details of the procedural error via the "Masar" platform

The court ruling revealed that the primary reason for dismissing the case was an error committed by the plaintiff's representative while submitting the mandatory grievance through the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Development's "Masar" digital platform. The representative submitted the request using his own name and personal information instead of the employee's data. This prevented the Ministry from linking the grievance to the plaintiff's employment record, resulting in the request being reviewed and a response rendered unclear.

Legal context and the importance of mandatory grievance

This ruling is based on the principles of the Rules of Procedure before the Board of Grievances in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which stipulates a mandatory grievance as a necessary preliminary step before resorting to the judiciary in administrative disputes related to employment rights. This step aims to give the administrative body an opportunity to rectify its errors amicably, thus reducing the influx of cases to the courts. The court considered that submitting the grievance in the name of an agent renders the legal provision ineffective and nullifies the procedure.

Background on "Psychological Allowance" and Digital Transformation

The "psychological allowance" is one of the allowances stipulated in the Saudi Civil Service Law for healthcare practitioners and administrators working in psychiatric hospitals and clinics, as compensation for the nature and conditions of their work. With the digital transformation the Kingdom is undergoing as part of Vision 2030, claiming these rights is now done through unified electronic channels such as the "Masar" platform. This underscores the necessity for employees and their representatives to be technically and legally aware when using these platforms, as digital systems do not tolerate errors in data entry.

The impact of the ruling and the lessons learned

The Administrative Court of Appeal upheld this ruling, making it final and sending a clear message to the legal and professional community about the necessity of strict adherence to procedural guidelines. Legal experts point out that this ruling highlights the importance of distinguishing between "standing" and "interest" in administrative cases, and warns that procedural errors can lead to the loss of established financial rights, as the administrative judiciary will not consider the merits of a case until all procedural requirements have been fully met.