The Administrative Court rejects the payment of psychological allowance to an employee due to an error by the agent
The Administrative Court in Saudi Arabia issued a ruling rejecting a lawsuit filed by an employee of a mental health hospital in Al-Ahsa Governorate. The employee had sought retroactive payment of 30% of his "psychiatric allowance." The court's decision was not based on the employee's lack of entitlement to the allowance, but rather on procedural grounds that the lawsuit was inadmissible due to a fundamental error committed by the plaintiff's representative during the submission of the grievance through the approved digital channels.
The case stems from an employee's demand that his employer pay him the financial entitlements due for his work in psychiatric clinics, based on regulations that grant healthcare practitioners in this field a cash allowance as compensation for the nature of their work. However, the obstacle preventing the case from being considered substantive was the procedure for submitting the mandatory prior grievance to the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Development via the "Masar" platform.
The ruling, upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal, revealed that the plaintiff's representative submitted the grievance through the digital platform using his own name and personal information as the representative, instead of registering the grievance in the name of the employee with the original right. This action prevented the ministry from reviewing the request, as the response indicated the grievance was unclear due to the lack of electronic and data linkage between the applicant (the representative) and the employee (the principal), rendering the grievance invalid.
The importance of mandatory appeals in administrative courts
The mandatory grievance before the administrative authority, prior to resorting to the courts, is a fundamental requirement for the admissibility of claims related to employment rights in the Saudi legal system. This procedure, stipulated in the Law of Procedures before the Board of Grievances, aims to give the administrative authority an opportunity to review its decisions and correct errors amicably, without burdening the courts with cases that can be resolved administratively. In this particular case, the court affirmed that submitting the grievance in the name of the employee's agent rendered the legal provision ineffective, as the authority was unable to actually investigate the employee's entitlement.
Digital transformation and procedural accuracy
This incident highlights the importance of accuracy when using government digital platforms such as the "Masar" platform. In light of the digital transformation underway in the Kingdom as part of Vision 2030, electronic procedures have become the standard for official transactions. The Masar platform serves as the unified portal for government human resources services, and any error in data entry or in identifying the applicant's status could lead to the loss of legal rights or delays in processing applications, as happened in this employee's case.
The nature and importance of psychological allowances
It is worth noting that the "psychological allowance" is one of the allowances stipulated in the health professions regulations. It is granted to employees in hospitals and psychiatric centers in recognition of the psychological stress and potential risks they face while dealing with patients. Eligibility for this allowance requires actual and continuous work in these facilities. Although an employee may be legally entitled to the allowance, administrative courts adhere to the principle of "form precedes substance," meaning that the correct procedural steps must be followed before claiming the substantive right.
