Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member did not cite any provision of Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and did not indicate whether any errors by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT in his case related to its jurisdiction, the procedure, a question of law or a question of fact. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective and consequently not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, nevertheless, reiterated its jurisprudence on some of the issues raised, and agreed with the way the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had determined the amount of in-lieu compensation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dorji.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of the appeal. As the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held, Mr. Dorji¡¯s alleged coerced resignation and subsequent separation from the Organization occurred in March and April 2019. Mr. Dorji¡¯s request for management evaluation thereof was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit by more than two years, on 25 June 2021.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had only presented arguments challenging the Administration¡¯s behaviour and the decision to terminate her contract with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, by judging the application not receivable and dismissing it on this ground, could have exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, made an error of law or procedure, or made an error of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable since the request for administrative review had...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to explain how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction or competence, erred on a question of law or procedure, or erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute precluded Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from suspending or waiving the deadlines for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was therefore correct in concluding that the application was not receivable and to reject it on that basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on a question of law in deciding that the Appellant had to establish that, without the errors committed in the review of her professional career, she would have had a real chance of being promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, in deciding that she had failed to demonstrate that the few material errors in her factsheet deprived her of the chance to be promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, despite its Registry¡¯s request for the Appellant to file an appeal brief, the Appellant failed to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was given the opportunity to improve his performance through the further extension of his appointment for an additional six months, but his performance had still not improved. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the conclusion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that both the initial decision to extend the Appellant¡¯s probationary period and the subsequent decision not to confirm his appointment were in compliance with his letter of appointment and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s regulatory...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective in that it failed to invoke the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute by not asserting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had either exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, erred on a question of law, committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case, or erred a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant also failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP by not providing a brief explaining the legal basis of any of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, which was not accompanied by a legal brief explaining the basis of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant failed to identify by citation to any provision in Article 2. 1 of the Statute, the grounds for his appeal, and was required to do so. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the appeal to be defective and not allowed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment.