Cassation No

(1-3) Administrative decision: “The legality of the administrative decision.” Bonus “granting academic degree bonus”. Salary “allowances: allowance for the nature of work.”

(1) The conferment of an academic degree bonus, corresponding to the rank of master’s degree, upon the employee is founded on Article 15 of the personnel affairs regulations of the respondent. A decision was rendered by the respondent to extend the bonus to the appellant, having duly satisfied all conditions for remuneration, and the revocation of said decision has not been substantiated. The entitlement thereof is effective from the date of the aforementioned decision.

(2) Two decisions were issued by the respondent to remunerate the appellant with a nature of work allowance. The suspension of this allowance is deemed erroneous, as it is impermissible to compromise any entitlement established or due to an employee, pursuant to Article 81 of the Appellant’s Personnel Affairs Regulations.

(3) The legality of an administrative decision is derived from its issuance by the administrative body duly authorized by law. The lack of jurisdiction on the part of the administrative authority that issued the decision renders it void, leading to its annulment. The appellant, having been appointed to a position within the respondent's purview by a decision from the Chairman of its Board of Directors, subsequently faced termination by a decision from its General Director. The ultimate decision lacks jurisdiction, in contravention of Article 62 of the Appellant’s Personnel Affairs Regulations.

1- With regard to the non-disbursement of the academic qualification bonus commencing from the year 2014, it is substantiated by documentary evidence that the disbursement of said bonus was mandated by Decision No. 25 of 2014. This decision explicitly affirmed that the appellant fulfilled all requisite conditions for the bonus disbursement, directing the Accounts Department to undertake necessary measures for its implementation. No evidence of cancellation or withdrawal of this decision has been adduced.

The appellant, in his application dated 14/3/2017, reiterated his entitlement to the aforementioned bonus. The expert assigned to the case, in his report, confirmed the non-payment of this bonus from its entitlement date on 1/1/2014 until the termination of the appellant's service, amounting to 28,500 dirhams.

Furthermore, Article 15 of the Personnel Affairs Law issued on 2/2/2017 mandates that the provision of a 500 dirhams allowance for an academic degree at the rank of master’s to a non-national employee is contingent upon the academic degree aligning with the nature of the employee's work. Additionally, the certificate must be equated with the degree from the Ministry of Higher Education in the country, obtained before the employee's appointment, and necessitates the submission of an application to the employer in this regard.

2- With respect to the allowance for the nature of the work, irrefutable evidence establishes that the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the respondent (...), through two unambiguous decisions, specifically Decision No. 17 of 2014 dated 23/9/2014 and Decision No. 20 of 2014 dated 8/10/2014, authorized the disbursement of a monthly work allowance to the appellant in the sum of 1,000 dirhams. The department consistently disbursed this amount in alignment with the fixed salary movements received by the appellant, as determined through the investigation conducted by the case expert. Notably, this allowance was discontinued on 1/1/2017 without any substantiated evidence demonstrating the withdrawal or cancellation of the aforementioned decisions.

In light of Article 81 of the Personnel Affairs Regulations, which amended preceding regulations, it is explicitly stipulated that the provisions of the regulation are not intended to impinge upon any entitlement established or due to an employee, except for the academic qualification. Consequently, the appellant's entitlement to this allowance has become an acquired right, particularly since no withdrawal or cancellation of the decisions has been demonstrated.

Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the allowance from the date of its suspension on 1/1/2017 until the termination of his service on 1/1/2019, as determined by the case expert in the amount of 24,000 dirhams.

3- In reference to the unlawfulness of the decision to terminate the appellant's employment, such termination was rendered invalid due to its issuance by the Director General, contravening Article (9) of the Personnel Affairs Regulations. This provision explicitly mandates that the authority empowered to issue termination notices is vested in the Chairman of the Board of Directors, who, by virtue of having issued the appointment decision, holds the requisite jurisdiction. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the impugned decision lacks substantiation and fails to align with the specified circumstances warranting employee service termination, as enumerated in Article (60) of the aforementioned regulations. It is prescribed in jurisprudence and administrative law and as per the ruling of this court that it is firmly established that an administrative decision attains legality only when it emanates from the administrative body duly authorised by law to issue such decisions. The issued decision reflects the will of the individual possessing jurisdiction, as it is through their will alone that the intent of the department to which they belong is manifested. If the issued decision exceeds the powers vested in the administrative authority, it becomes lacking jurisdiction. This flaw renders the decision susceptible to judicial annulment, as it emanates from an incompetent body.

The substantiated and undisputed evidence in the documents illustrates that the appellant was appointed to the position of executive secretary at the respondent by the Chairman of the Board of Directors on 2/1/2012, in accordance with the terms outlined in Article 1 of the contract binding the two parties. Article 62 of the respondent's personnel affairs regulations, subsequent to detailing various instances of employee service termination, explicitly states that the individual responsible for the appointment bears the responsibility for all termination cases delineated in the regulation. This article, along with other provisions in the personnel affairs regulation, prohibits the delegation of this authority to others.

It is evident from the referenced decision A F / 2643/2018 dated 23/7/2018 that the decision to terminate the appellant’s service was issued by the general director of the respondent. This contravenes the stipulations of Article 62 and renders the decision defective due to a lack of jurisdiction, a fundamental aspect of administrative decisions related to public order, an oversight not addressed by the appealed ruling.

The Court

Whereas, in a prior session dated 31/3/2021, this court had decreed the reversal of the ruling issued by the Federal Court of Appeal in Appeal No. 38 of 2020, dated 22/11/2020, and had determined to examine the merits of the case.

Whereas, based on the facts as delineated in the contested ruling and the remaining cassation documents, Mr. [Appellant], in suit No. 121 of 2019 - Administrative, sought the annulment of the decision terminating his service, reinstatement to his position, and compensation for unfair dismissal. He additionally claimed entitlement to the discrepancies in the educational qualification allowance for 57 months and the differences in the nature of the work allowance. The [Appellant] asserted that he served as an executive secretary for [Company] from the year 2012 until the termination of his service in 2019 without a justifiable cause. Furthermore, he alleged that the department failed to remunerate him in accordance with the law, prompting the initiation of the lawsuit. The court of first instance, subsequent to appointing an expert, rendered a decision on 30/12/2019 to dismiss the lawsuit. Mr. [Appellant] appealed this decision in Appeal No. 38 of 2020 to the Fujairah Federal Court of Appeal on 25/3/2020, which annulled the initial ruling and awarded Mr. [Appellant] the sum of 52,500 dirhams. Both [Company] and [Another Party] appealed this ruling through cassation. The Federal Supreme Court, on 31/8/2020, ordered the reversal of the judgment and remanded the case.

Upon reconsideration by the court of next instance, it, on 22/11/2020, affirmed the appealed ruling, basing its decision on the invalidity of the declaration made by the [Appellant] that he had received all his dues. The court found that his requests were unproven, leading to the issuance of the aforementioned ruling.

Whereas this court had previously ruled, during the session dated 31/3/2021, to reverse the ruling issued by the Federal Court of Appeal in Appeal No. 38 of 2020, dated 22/11/2020, and to deliberate on the merits.

Whereas the deliberation raises the dispute over the appealed ruling in its entirety and opens the door for the Supreme Court to weigh it on the scale of the law based on demonstrating whether one or more of the conditions that flawed it occurred, then apply the rule of law to the dispute in the correct manner.

Whereas the dispute revolves around the illegality of the respondent’s decision to terminate the appellant’s service, to return him to his job, to award him compensation, and to impose on (....) to pay him the differences in lieu of the academic qualification and the allowance for the nature of the work.

With regard to the non-disbursement of the academic qualification bonus commencing from the year 2014, it is substantiated by documentary evidence that the disbursement of said bonus was mandated by Decision No. 25 of 2014. This decision explicitly affirmed that the appellant fulfilled all requisite conditions for the bonus disbursement, directing the Accounts Department to undertake necessary measures for its implementation. No evidence of cancellation or withdrawal of this decision has been adduced.

The appellant, in his application dated 14/3/2017, reiterated his entitlement to the aforementioned bonus. The expert assigned to the case, in his report, confirmed the non-payment of this bonus from its entitlement date on 1/1/2014 until the termination of the appellant's service, amounting to 28,500 dirhams.

Furthermore, Article 15 of the Personnel Affairs Law issued on 2/2/2017 mandates that the provision of a 500 dirhams allowance for an academic degree at the rank of master’s to a non-national employee is contingent upon the academic degree aligning with the nature of the employee's work. Additionally, the certificate must be equated with the degree from the Ministry of Higher Education in the country, obtained before the employee's appointment, and necessitates the submission of an application to the employer in this regard.

With respect to the allowance for the nature of the work, irrefutable evidence establishes that the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the respondent (...), through two unambiguous decisions, specifically Decision No. 17 of 2014 dated 23/9/2014 and Decision No. 20 of 2014 dated 8/10/2014, authorized the disbursement of a monthly work allowance to the appellant in the sum of 1,000 dirhams. The department consistently disbursed this amount in alignment with the fixed salary movements received by the appellant, as determined through the investigation conducted by the case expert. Notably, this allowance was discontinued on 1/1/2017 without any substantiated evidence demonstrating the withdrawal or cancellation of the aforementioned decisions.

In light of Article 81 of the Personnel Affairs Regulations, which amended preceding regulations, it is explicitly stipulated that the provisions of the regulation are not intended to impinge upon any entitlement established or due to an employee, except for the academic qualification. Consequently, the appellant's entitlement to this allowance has become an acquired right, particularly since no withdrawal or cancellation of the decisions has been demonstrated.

Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the allowance from the date of its suspension on 1/1/2017 until the termination of his service on 1/1/2019, as determined by the case expert in the amount of 24,000 dirhams.

In reference to the unlawfulness of the decision to terminate the appellant's employment, such termination was rendered invalid due to its issuance by the Director General, contravening Article (9) of the Personnel Affairs Regulations. This provision explicitly mandates that the authority empowered to issue termination notices is vested in the Chairman of the Board of Directors, who, by virtue of having issued the appointment decision, holds the requisite jurisdiction. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the impugned decision lacks substantiation and fails to align with the specified circumstances warranting employee service termination, as enumerated in Article (60) of the aforementioned regulations. It is prescribed in jurisprudence and administrative law and as per the ruling of this court that it is firmly established that an administrative decision attains legality only when it emanates from the administrative body duly authorised by law to issue such decisions. The issued decision reflects the will of the individual possessing jurisdiction, as it is through their will alone that the intent of the department to which they belong is manifested. If the issued decision exceeds the powers vested in the administrative authority, it becomes lacking jurisdiction. This flaw renders the decision susceptible to judicial annulment, as it emanates from an incompetent body.

The substantiated and undisputed evidence in the documents illustrates that the appellant was appointed to the position of executive secretary at the respondent by the Chairman of the Board of Directors on 2/1/2012, in accordance with the terms outlined in Article 1 of the contract binding the two parties. Article 62 of the respondent's personnel affairs regulations, subsequent to detailing various instances of employee service termination, explicitly states that the individual responsible for the appointment bears the responsibility for all termination cases delineated in the regulation. This article, along with other provisions in the personnel affairs regulation, prohibits the delegation of this authority to others.

It is evident from the referenced decision A F / 2643/2018 dated 23/7/2018 that the decision to terminate the appellant’s service was issued by the general director of the respondent. This contravenes the stipulations of Article 62 and renders the decision defective due to a lack of jurisdiction, a fundamental aspect of administrative decisions related to public order, an oversight not addressed by the appealed ruling.

Regarding the sought compensation, the available documents fail to provide confirmation of damages incurred by the appellant or establish a causal relationship between the contested decision and the purported damages for which compensation is sought. Consequently, the lawsuit in this particular aspect is deemed inadmissible in its current form.