91鶹

2024-UNAT-1433, Palash Kanti Das

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNAT noted that the essence of the administrative decision had been that the staff member was not entitled to cashed-up unused annual leave from a second appointment taken up within 12 months of relinquishing a first appointment after which such leave had been commutated.

The UNAT observed that the staff member’s request for management evaluation referred to the Administration’s alleged “continued failure” to compensate him the commutation of annual leave. The UNAT found that the reference reinforced a conclusion that it had been the consistent decision conveyed to him over several months that was the subject of his complaint.

The UNAT held that the essential nature of the decision had been to require repayment and that the precise amount of the payment had not been the administrative decision but only an elemental detail of it. The UNAT found that while the staff member had also challenged the detail of how much he should have to repay should he be obliged in law to do so, this had been a detail of the fundamental decision that he should repay all commutated leave.

The UNAT held that even if, in responding to the staff member’s correspondence, the Secretary-General had expanded upon the reasoning or even added further justifications for the decision, it was the decision and not the subsequently expressed discussion of its reasoning that had to be the subject of management evaluation. The UNAT concluded that the staff member had failed to seek management evaluation within the strict time limit.

The UNAT granted the appeal and reversed the UNDT’s Judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

A former staff member contested the decision to recover an overpayment of money for untaken annual leave.

In Judgment No. UNDT/2023/024, the UNDT concluded that the staff member’s claims were receivable and that the Secretary-General was not entitled to recover the money because he had a legitimate expectation to the receipt of this money. The UNDT rescinded the contested decision.

The Secretary-General appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

Repetition of an administrative decision by the Secretary-General does not re-set the time limit for seeking management evaluation.

A communication that is subsequent to an administrative decision that contains expanded reasoning of that administrative decision is not a new administrative decision.

Outcome
Appeal granted

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/ Appellants
Palash Kanti Das
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type