Friday, January 21

The Supreme Court endorses that it is rejected to delay the retirement of the civil servants if they do not have a “suitable” performance

The Supreme Court has concluded that the Administration can reject an official’s request to delay his retirement until after the age of 65 if his bosses consider that his performance “has not been suitable or expected,” according to what has been advanced. The newspaper of Spain.

In a judgment of November 15, to which Europa Press has had access, the Fourth Section of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber has specified that in these cases “it will not be arbitrary to deny him the extension of his active life.” In the resolution, of which the magistrate José Luis Requero has been rapporteur, the Chamber has stressed that “the general rule” imposed by law is that the relationship of services that links the official with the Administration is extinguished when reaching the age of 65-year retirement. Thus, he recalled that “the exception is that it can last up to 70 years.”

In this sense, the magistrates have explained that “if the extension is granted, it is because the two interests converge: that of the civil servant who wants to continue working and that of the Administration that does not want to lose him.” Thus, the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal presented by an official of the Court of Accounts who, after 44 years of service, asked to remain in office until the age of 70 and alleged that there were enough vacancies to continue in the team.

Unfavorable report from bosses

The supervisory body relied on a report from its superiors to deny the request. The text warned of the “continued functional maladjustment of the applicant to the structure of the Department and its needs, as well as the organizational needs of the Department.”

Specifically, the report included a series of complaints filed since 2012 regarding the “poor performance of the applicant”, considered “far inferior to that of the rest of the team”, with “delays in the delivery of their work”, which would have caused “repeated requirements of both the direct superior and the Technical Directorate “. As specified by the Supreme Court, reports from four other superiors were added to said unfavorable report.

The sentence also states that he did not join a Whastapp group promoted by the director of his department during the confinement that was issued in the first state of alarm due to the COVID-19 health crisis. The official questioned whether it was a work tool of the Court of Accounts.

Poor performance

In the framework of their resolution, the magistrates of the Chamber have concluded that the civil servant has been denied to extend his retirement “for a single reason”: for his “deficiencies in the performance of the work”. Thus, he stressed that prolonging his active life “would bring no benefit to the Court of Auditors.”

In his opinion, it is “obvious” that the Administrations when exercising their power “may incur arbitrariness” and that their exercise “may degenerate into a misuse of power”. He has clarified, however, that this would occur “if that power is not exercised for the benefit of the Administration but is harmed by dispensing with an objectively competent and, moreover, necessary official.”

In this case, the Supreme Court has considered that the action of the Administration “does not deduce a twisted intention or animosity towards the plaintiff, but rather the assessment of his professional career in which his superiors have had to push him towards compliance with their duties, showing a trace of dissatisfaction when valuing it. ”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *