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

The Administrative Court in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia established an important judicial principle regarding the need to strictly adhere to formal procedures when claiming employment rights, as it ruled to reject a lawsuit filed by an employee working in a mental health hospital in Al-Ahsa Governorate, in which he demanded the disbursement of the differences of “psychological allowance” at a rate of 30% retroactively.

Details of the ruling and reasons for the formal rejection

The court ruled the case inadmissible on procedural grounds, not substantive ones, due to a procedural error committed by the employee's representative during the submission of the mandatory grievance via the "Masar" digital platform. The ruling revealed that the representative submitted the grievance using his own name and personal information instead of the name of the employee with the original claim, thus preventing the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Development from processing the request.

The judicial department explained that this error rendered the grievance “null and void,” as the administrative body was unable to verify the plaintiff’s job data or examine his entitlement, due to the absence of a proper electronic link between the applicant (the agent) and the actual job holder.

The importance of mandatory appeals in administrative courts

The mandatory appeal to the administrative body is a crucial step preceding recourse to the Board of Grievances in employment disputes. The legislative rationale behind this procedure lies in granting the administrative body an opportunity to rectify its errors and review its decisions amicably, thereby reducing the burden on the courts and decreasing the influx of cases.

In this case, the court confirmed that submitting the grievance in the name of the agent emptied the regulatory text of its purpose, as the desired goal of enabling the ministry to examine the case was not achieved, which necessitated rejecting the lawsuit for not fulfilling the formal conditions stipulated by the system of procedures before the Board of Grievances.

Digital transformation and data accuracy in the Masar platform

This ruling highlights the importance of meticulously managing government digital platforms such as "Masar," the unified portal for human resources services in the public sector. These systems rely on accurate input to ensure the smooth and correct operation of automated processes.

This ruling highlights the need for employees and legal and legitimate agents to be aware that electronic systems require complete data matching, and that any negligence in formal procedures may lead to the loss of due financial and professional rights, even if the employee is right in the basis of his claim (the subject matter), since the administrative judiciary does not consider the subject matter of the lawsuit except after ensuring the integrity of its formal procedures.

The Administrative Court of Appeal upheld this ruling, making it final, thus establishing the rule that “form precedes substance” in administrative lawsuits, and that legal agency does not mean replacing the identity of the principal with the identity of the agent in government digital transactions.