A new decision from the Ministry of Finance to disburse a reward incentive for employees.. Get to know it

A new decision from the Ministry of Finance to disburse a reward incentive for employees.. Get to know it
A new decision from the Ministry of Finance to disburse a reward incentive for employees.. Get to know it

Books by Hani Al-Houti

Saturday, May 20, 2023 05:00 AM

The Ministry of Finance issued Circular No. 47 of 2023 regarding the disbursement of an additional reward incentive for employees, in which it stressed the need to comply with the State Council’s fatwa on the ineligibility of disbursing a reward incentive for employees who obtained lawsuits, if it is already disbursed within the components of the job wage.

This came after the issuance of the fatwa of the General Assembly of the Fatwa and Legislation Departments of the State Council, File No. (132) 58/1/737 regarding the request of the Buhaira Governorate to express a legal opinion on how to implement the two rulings issued regarding the claimant’s entitlement to pay the additional reward incentive claimed and its effects.

And it was stated in the fatwa’s reasoning: that upon the implementation of the ruling by the Buhaira governorate, it was found that the one in whose favor the ruling was issued actually receives an additional reward incentive at a rate of 200% determined by Law No. 51 of 2011, divided as follows: (100%) has been added within the components of the job wage as of July 1 In 2015, in implementation of the provisions of the Civil Service Law promulgated by Law No. (18) of 2015, and the other (100%) was added to the elements of the supplementary wage, and since the work of the functional wage and the supplementary wage continued, until the date of entry into force of the current civil service law, and thus it is The percentage of the reward incentive that the offeree receives is already included in the full wage in the sense contained in the Civil Service Law and its executive regulations, without any deduction.

It has not been proven that the percentage has been withdrawn from being paid after its disbursement was completed on a date prior to the issuance of these two rulings. Thus, the administration has fulfilled its obligation that was revealed by the two aforementioned rulings, and accordingly there is no room for claiming their implementation, because there is no place for this implementation because it was previously fulfilled, as well as Re-implementing them would double the fulfillment of the same right, which the court did not rule.

Based on the foregoing, the General Assembly noted that if the administrative authority, upon its request to implement a specific judicial ruling, found that it had already implemented the ruling, and fully performed the obligation imposed on it, or fulfilled the adjudged right in full, without suspicion to those concerned, as if it had taken the necessary measures Which the judgment revealed that it must be taken, such as annulling the decision decided to cancel it from the date of its issuance, or paying the sums that the court ruled to the judgment debtor in his favor, or otherwise, whether the administrative authority initiated that voluntarily before issuing the judgment, convinced of the right of the person concerned in that, or based on the request submitted by him. to her.

In the event that this judgment does not come across as an enforceable object in whole or in part, because the entity has fulfilled what the court ruled in fulfillment of its obligation within the limits in which it was fulfilled, which would legally prevent this entity from re-fulfilling what it had previously fulfilled, as it would Re-fulfillment In this case, re-fulfillment of the same right, without a support from the judgment as it did not rule in double fulfillment of the obligation and the right adjudged.

In this case, the executive power of the judgment is limited to emphasizing that the fulfillment initiated by the administration within the limits of the adjudicated right is valid and enforceable, and there is no reason to revoke it or question it, in obedience to the authority of the judicial ruling and the force of the legally decided order. This confirms that the re-performance of the obligation or the fulfillment of the adjudicated right after the judgment is rendered would result in the convict obtaining what is not his right within the limits of this double-fulfillment, in addition to the discrimination that this entails for him over his peers with similar legal positions, which constitutes a breach. clear on the principle of equality between them.