Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 532

Summary: - Excellent service. Its meaning: every tangible, extraordinary effort made by an employee that achieves a benefit or public advantage. This bonus is granted within the financial appropriation allocated to it. The employee’s mere fulfilment of the conditions set out in the aforementioned decision does not necessarily require that he be granted this bonus. The condition: abuse or deviation of power has not been established. The judgment’s ruling that the respondent was entitled to the excellent work bonus on the basis that he met the criteria for its payment in accordance with the prescribed legal standards. A violation of law. The reason: granting this bonus is a discretionary matter for the administrative authority by virtue of its discretionary power in this regard. This requires cassation of the judgment. Rule: It is established—in the jurisprudence of this Court—that an employee’s relationship with the government is a regulatory relationship governed by laws and regulations, and the employee’s status is a general legal status. It is also established that the provisions of Minister of Finance Decision No. 13 of 1977 concerning the Rules for Granting the Excellent Work Bonus to Employees mean that this bonus is granted in return for excellent services rendered by an employee, servant or worker, by a decision issued by the competent minister. Excellent service means every tangible, extraordinary effort made by an employee that achieves a benefit or public advantage. This bonus is granted within the financial appropriation allocated to it. Accordingly, this bonus is a matter within the administrative authority’s discretion by virtue of its discretionary power in this regard, in light of the rules set out in the aforementioned decision. Consequently, the employee’s mere fulfilment of the conditions set out in this decision does not necessarily require that he be granted this bonus, so long as abuse or deviation of power has not been established. That being so, and since the challenged judgment—upholding the first-instance judgment—ruled that the respondent was entitled to the excellent work bonus for 2010, and based this ruling on his fulfilment of the criteria for its payment in accordance with the prescribed legal standards, it was issued contrary to the correct rule of law, since granting this bonus is a matter within the administrative authority’s discretion by virtue of its discretionary power in this regard. Consequently, the challenged judgment was issued defectively, requiring its cassation.