The Administrative Court 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 dismissed the case on procedural grounds, citing a fundamental procedural error made by the plaintiff's representative during the submission of the grievance through the approved digital channels.
Details of the procedural error in the Masar platform
The case stems from an employee's demand that his employer pay him the financial entitlements due to him as an employee in psychiatric hospitals and clinics, retroactive to his start date. However, the obstacle preventing the court from considering the financial entitlement was the mandatory prior grievance filing procedure. The court's reasoning revealed that the plaintiff's representative filed the grievance through the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Development's "Masar" digital platform using his personal account and name as the representative, instead of submitting the request on behalf of the employee himself, who was the rightful owner.
Legal context and the importance of mandatory grievance
This ruling reaffirms the established principles of Saudi administrative law, where filing a grievance with the administrative body or through the Ministry of Human Resources (Masar platform) is a mandatory prerequisite before resorting to the Board of Grievances in cases related to employment rights. This step, stipulated in the Law of Procedures before the Board of Grievances, aims to give the administrative body an opportunity to review its decisions and correct errors amicably, thus contributing to easing the burden on the courts and reducing the influx of cases that can be resolved administratively.
Why did the court reject the case?
The judicial panel explained in its reasoning that submitting the grievance in the name of the agent instead of the principal (the employee) prevented the competent authority from linking the request to the plaintiff's employment data, thus rendering the grievance null and void. The court indicated that the validity of the formal procedures is the gateway to considering the merits of the case, and that any procedural flaw—such as a discrepancy between the grievant's data and the rightful owner—precludes the acceptance of the claim. This was upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal, thereby establishing an important principle regarding the necessity of strict adherence to digital and procedural regulations when claiming rights.
The impact of digital transformation on judicial procedures
This ruling reflects the importance of adapting to the digital transformation in Saudi Arabia, where electronic platforms like "Masar" have become the sole official channel for addressing employment grievances. The ruling sends a clear message to legal professionals and employees about the necessity of exercising precision in the use of digital tools, as electronic systems are designed to handle data with extreme accuracy. Any input error could lead to the loss of legitimate employment rights for purely procedural reasons, regardless of whether the employee is actually entitled to the allowance.
