Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is the detailed analysis:<\/p>\n
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The plaintiff sought to declare the inaction of the Office of the Prosecutor General regarding the non-payment of his severance pay upon dismissal as unlawful and to compel the defendant to make such payment.<\/p>\n
2. **Court’s arguments:** In this case, the Supreme Court departed from its previous position, which allowed for the recovery of severance pay regardless of the fact of the employee’s reinstatement. The Court emphasized that severance pay is a special guarantee intended to provide the employee with income during the period of seeking new employment when the dismissal occurs against their will. Since the plaintiff had already succeeded in a parallel judicial proceeding in revoking the dismissal order and received average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism, his right to income had been fully restored. The Court explained that the payment of severance pay and the recovery of average earnings for forced absenteeism are mutually exclusive, as both payments are compensatory in nature. Simultaneously recovering both would lead to unjustified double enrichment of the individual, which contradicts the principles of fairness and legal certainty. Therefore, if there is a decision on reinstatement, the grounds for the payment of severance pay cease to exist.<\/p>\n
3. **Court\u2019s decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and rendered a new decision: to fully deny the claims of PERSON_1.<\/p>\n