The Civil and Commercial Court of the Court of Cassation ruled that the claim of a female employee for a fee from the entity in which she works after being dispatched on a study mission was considered as if it were not, because the entity spent on her as a scholarship student educational expenses throughout the study period and she did not work for a period equal to the period of study abroad or double it according to the scholarship organization law Then she resigned and there is no longer a rivalry. The facts, as shown by the appealed judgment, indicate that the appellant, in his capacity, filed an administrative lawsuit against the respondent, in which he requests the judgment to oblige her to pay a sum of money because she was working for him in an engineering job and that according to a contract she was dispatched on a scholarship at the expense of the entity in which she works, as the article stipulates in The law obligates her to work for the entity for a period equal to the period of study, and the law organizing scholarships obliges her to work twice the period she spent studying, but after her return she submitted her resignation and pledged to pay the amounts due, but she refused to do so. The employee requested an end-of-service gratuity and handed over an experience certificate for the duration of her work and obligated him to pay compensation. The court delegated an expert, and he filed his report. Then the court ruled in the case that the respondents must pay the appellant a sum of money in exchange for the expenses and salaries that were paid to her during the mission period. In the case, the negative administrative decision was canceled. By refraining from handing the employee an experience certificate. The appealed party submitted an appeal and argued for the forfeiture of the right to claim the salaries that were paid to it after its resignation, and the court rejected the appeal and upheld the ruling. The appellant mourns the reasons for appealing against the ruling in violation of the law, the error in its application, the lack of reasoning, and the violation of the papers that ruled obligating her to pay the amount spent in exchange for the expenses and salaries that were spent during the period of the scholarship, although the law was clear, which is to work in the entity for a period equivalent to the period of study, which defects the ruling and requires it to be appealed. And it is decided in the Court of Cassation’s judgment according to the law organizing scholarships that in order to improve the technical and professional level of students and employees and provide them with the means of advanced education, the legislator was concerned with organizing scholarships for students and employees inside and outside the State of Qatar, and set conditions and controls for them in order to achieve this goal, especially And that the financial burden of this cost rests with the state, and unifies the principles and foundations that are applied to students and all employees in order to achieve equality. It sent him for a period equal to the period he spent in study at the expense of the Ministry, and the employee was obliged to work in his job for twice that period. The provisions of the contract are applicable, given that the contract included the best advantage for the employee. As for any other conditions in the contract that are less than that, they become null and the legal text becomes the one that must be implemented. The primary judgment had established its judgment by obliging the appellant to pay the respondent an amount in exchange for the expenses and salaries that were paid to her during her scholarship period. The court had ended up ruling the contested ruling with cassation, with the consequence of its demise and its consideration as if it did not exist. The present appeal has ceased to be in place, and there is no longer a litigation between the two parties. Which must be judged as finished.
