Employees who want to continue providing their services to the Administration beyond 65 years must present a service sheet that justifies that their Permanence is a real benefit for the Administration, as established as a doctrine by the Supreme Court in a recent ruling of its Contentious-Administrative Chamber.
The resolution, issued in the middle of last November and to which ‘El Periódico de España’, a newspaper belonging to the same publishing group as this medium, has had access, rejects the appeal raised by a auditor of Court of Auditors requesting to remain in his post up to 70 years, alleging the existence of vacancies. Against him, numerous reports from your superiors questioning the quality of your work, as well as the complaints from their colleagues for the many personal calls he made and received in his office.
The sentence, whose rapporteur has been the magistrate Jose Luis Requero, rejects the appeal that the appellant, after 44 years of service in the supervisory court, presented against the resolution signed by the previous president of this body, Maria Jose de la Fuente, in June 2020. Your appeal has been rejected and you have been payment of costs of process.
The appellant was an official of the Technical Body of Audit and External Control of the Court of Accounts and in his application before the high court, he rejects that there were organizational or objective reasons to deny him the extension of the service that he presented under article 67.3 of the Basic Statute of the Public Employee.
Lack of troops
He justified it in the need of the body of officials belonging to Group 2, to which he belonged, since in the list of jobs of the Court of Accounts there were 324 places with budgetary provision Although they were only accounted for at the time of your request 260 troops. To this was added the existence of 24 vacancies without endowmentr of the specific Group to which he belonged, as well as the announcement of a contest to fill positions two months before his retirement.
In his appeal, the official tried to combat the unfavorable reports against them, in which their superiors speak of a quality of their work “significantly lower than that of their colleagues of the same or lower level of complement of destination”. To this end, it alleges that the sources used to arrive at that assessment and the comparison parameters between employees are not included in said reports.
With respect to other reports, which indicated that he made and received numerous private telephone calls that motivated the Complaint from “his fellow offices and the adjoining offices”, the official affirms that it is an accusation without proof and delivered, in defense, emails in which the officials of the neighboring offices deny it.
Collect the arrears
For all these reasons, he requested the Supreme Court to declare the nullity of the resolution issued by De la Fuente and to declare his right to prolong the permanence in the active service situation and, therefore, the reinstatement to your job at the Court of Accounts, with Payment of the economic perceptions that had stopped receiving since his retirement.
In the legal foundations of the sentence, the Supreme Court recalls that its jurisprudence, which is now established as a doctrine, establishes that in addition to the organizational needs, the administration must take into account “the personal circumstances of the official like, for example, your level of adequacy to quality standards and volume of work set for their position “, which leads to assess their industriousness or if it contributes to the achievement of the objectives of the body in which it provides services.
“Ultimately, it is assessed whether the prolongation of their active life is positive for the public interests identified with those that the Administration satisfies,” says the Supreme Court, who recalls that it is not necessary that they have imposed disciplinary measures on the official to make a negative assessment From his job.
“First of all a truism: that there is a general rule and its exception,” adds the Supreme Court ruling, to then explain that “the general rule is the one imposed by law and is that The service relationship that links the official with the Administration expires upon reaching retirement age. sixty-five years old; the exception is that it can last up to seventy years. “
It is not so much a question of “a benefit for the official -which it is- as, rather, a benefit for the Administration“Ultimately, if the extension is accessed, 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.
Regarding this particular case, the Supreme Court recalls that the reason for not prolonging their stay in the Court of Auditors must be found in their poor performance, which according to the reports presented was much lower than that of the rest of the team during most of 2018 , 2019 and until July 2020, “with delays in the delivery of your work causing repeated requests from both the direct superior and the Technical Directorate “.
In the end, the ruling of the Supreme Court points out “that work was delivered hastily, without depth and with errors, making supervision difficult. It affects that did not keep technical training updated for the performance of his duties in such a way that in the last thirteen years he only requested one course of the Training Program, and he did so at the request of the then superior because it was a training “essential for the revision of the annual accounts of state-owned companies “, which was the field for which it was assigned.
The high court also highlights the fact that it was not integrated into a WhatsApp group promoted by your department director during the time of confinement by covid-19, which he did questioning whether this was an adequate work tool.
“Broadly speaking, it can be deduced that the plaintiff has been denied the extension of his active life for only one reason: because due to deficiencies in the performance of the work entrusted, it has been considered that, with this extension, no benefit would bring to the Court of Auditors“, concludes the sentence.