The circumstances of the appeal before us are somewhat different, because the appellant does not demand that he be promoted. After all, the rank was finally awarded to him in 2016. However, and as was ruled in the Avraham case, it is sufficient for a claim to raise as a disputed question one of the issues listed in section 93A of the Police Ordinance, so that the entire claim will be outside the jurisdiction of the Labor Court... This is in contrast to cases of "clean" wage claims that have nothing to do with a dispute regarding appointments or the granting of a rank, in which it was determined that the competent court is the Labor Court (see, for example, petitions dealing with salary increase for academic education: ... In the appeal before us, we are not dealing with a "clean" wage claim, since the entitlement to the alleged monetary relief depends directly on the question of the degree to which the petitioner is entitled. Later on, the appellant was granted the rank of Superintendent, but this fact does not obviate the need to rule on his claim that he was entitled to the rank of Superintendent as early as 2001, and this question is within the jurisdiction of the Court for Administrative Affairs in accordance with the precedent ruled in the Avraham case. This conclusion is also consistent with the expansive interpretation of section 93A of the Police Ordinance adopted by this Court..."
In the Pozailov case, the remedy claimed was retroactive enforcement of a fixed economic right (rank), and the Court for Administrative Affairs was required to rule on the question of when he was entitled to the rank of superintendent. In these circumstances, the limitation of the authority of the Court for Administrative Affairs is not clearly expressed, since once it determines the date of entitlement to the rank of superintendent, it can easily be translated into monetary relief.
- Sometimes, the monetary relief claimed is compensation for the defendant's claim of alleged improper conduct by the police as an employer, in connection with the matter of the subscription in section 93A of the Police Ordinance. In these circumstances, the question arises of a decision in the matter of the subscription in section 93A of the Ordinance in the framework of indirect assault. This is by virtue of section 39 of the Labor Court Law, which refers to section 76 of the Courts Law, (Consolidated Version), 5744-1984.
- In a closed article, we will note that section 76 of the Courts Law, together with section 39 of the Law, is based on the assumption that the matter is from the outset within the jurisdiction of the Labor Court ("a matter was brought lawfully"). In this context, a question may arise as to whether a monetary claim filed by virtue of section 24(a)(1) of the Labor Court Law in matters listed in section 93A of the Police Ordinance can satisfy the requirement that a matter be "lawfully brought", when the doubt arises in view of the fact that the test of the Labor Court's jurisdiction is three-stage and not only according to the remedy. Since the parties did not claim this, we will leave the decision on this matter for the time being.
- In any event, and this is the main thing, the decision whether to make use of the decision-making power in the gerra is left to the discretion of the deciding court in the matter before it (see the judgment of the Honorable Justice Mazuz Other Municipality Applications 4291/17 Moti Alfriah v. Haifa Municipality [published in Nevo] (March 6, 2019)). In the Yakubov case, the question was discussed as to whether a claim for monetary relief of compensation by virtue of the matter listed in section 93A of the Police Ordinance should be heard in a civil instance (i.e., a magistrate's court) by virtue of indirect assault and the exercise of the decision-making power in the case. In the Yakubov case, the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative. Thus it is stated:
"Linking a price to a claim is not like a magic wand that changes the nature of the claim and the substantive issues it deals with. A claim that is essentially administrative will remain so even if a demand for monetary relief is made at the outset. It should be noted that in our case, we are not dealing with decisions relating to government policy that are attacked by the respondent in his lawsuit, but there are considerations of the Israel Police, which is the body responsible for maintaining public order and protecting the public, with regard to recruitment, placement and dismissal of a police officer. These considerations do not relate only to the respondent, but to all those who serve in the Israel Police in a variety of positions and in a variety of ranks. The legislature determined that issues involving these considerations would be referred to the Court for Administrative Affairs. This should not be so easily circumvented by declaring that the plaintiff is not interested in returning to police service, but only seeks to receive compensation. It is not the number in the form of a financial demand that counts. The result will be that many lawsuits that the legislature has defined as administrative, will be heard before the civil courts (for more information, see: Justice Dr. Yaakov Shaked, Indirect Assault in Criminal and Civil Proceedings, 270-280 (2020)). The focus here is on the administration's conduct and not on a civil dispute. The administrative court is the panel that is familiar with such claims."