The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal of a government agency against an appeal judgment, ruling to cancel its decision to end the service of an employee, and decided to refer the case to the Court of Appeal for further consideration.
The employee, in a lawsuit filed against his employer, said that he “worked in a government agency from September 2016 until his service was terminated due to the restructuring in January 2019,” calling for “canceling the decision to terminate his service, and as a precaution to compel the employer to pay him his dues from the end of service reward And the salaries and balance of his vacation.
The first instance court ruled to dismiss the case, then the Court of Appeal ruled to cancel the preliminary ruling, and again to eliminate the decision to terminate the prosecutor's service.
On the other hand, the employer was not satisfied with this ruling, and she appealed to him before the Federal Supreme Court, explaining that the appeal judgment violated the law, and it was wrong to apply it when he ruled the decision to terminate the prosecutor’s service unlawful, if the decision was based on a legitimate reason, as the prosecutor was working for it With a job that was canceled by a decision of restructuring and organization, what is with it is based on a legitimate reason in reality and the law, unless the appeal judgment discerns what is wrong with it and requires its reversal.
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the employer's appeal, explaining that it is decided in the human resources law rules that abolishing a job in the organizational structure of the public facility is to write off the job with all of its duties and responsibilities from the organizational tasks included within the job in the government agency, and permanently, unless it is decided to transfer these Duties and responsibilities to another organization in the government agency itself or to another government agency.
She pointed out that the constant that article (145/7) of the human resources regulation for the workplace stipulated that “the employee’s service ends by a decision from the head of this body as a result of restructuring the organizational units or jobs,” adding that “the constant also that the plaintiff was working In a job for a period not exceeding three years, and it was canceled based on the restructuring, as a result of which the decision to terminate his service was issued with a legitimate reason for it, unless the appeal judgment was discerned, which became contrary to the law and withheld that from the examination of the elements of the case what must be vetoed, provided that With referral veto.