Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

PD A/9

  • Area Staff Personnel Directive No. A/4/Part II, Rev. 8/Section I
  • IPD 1/10
  • IPD/I/104.4
  • IPD/I/112.6/Rev.1
  • PD 1/4/Part I/Rev.1
  • PD A/10
  • PD A/10/Rev.1
  • PD A/10/Rev.3
  • PD A/17
  • PD A/2/Part.II/Rev. 4
  • PD A/23
  • PD A/3
  • PD A/4/Part II/Rev.7
  • PD A/4/Part VII/Rev.7
  • PD A/5/Part II
  • PD A/5/Rev.7/Part II
  • PD A/6/Amend.12/Part III
  • PD A/6/Amend.72
  • PD A/6/Part II/Amend.2
  • PD A/6/Part VI
  • PD A/60
  • PD A/9
  • PD A/9/Rev.10
  • PD I/104.2
  • PD No.A/3/Rev.1/Part XI/Amend.5
  • PD/A/1/Rev.1/Par1/Section 1
  • PD/A/4/Part II/ Rev.7/Section 1
    • Showing 1 - 3 of 3
    2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-790, Anshasi

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to differ from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had no reason to refer the Appellant to a medical board and that the issue was not relevant as the Appellant did not contest that he was unfit for service, nor did he allege that his health problems were related to his service with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that, as the Appellant was over sixty years of age, he was not eligible for a disability...

    2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-749, Ayoub

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence before it to support the contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that there was no evidence that the decision to abolish the Appellant¡¯s post was arbitrary or capricious, motivated by prejudice or extraneous factors, or was flawed by procedural irregularity or error of law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was evidence of a process that was motivated by budgetary constraints as well as concerns about the effective management of a redundancy process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no procedural irregularity or any error in law on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT...

    2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-748, Sharbaji

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no purpose would have been served by the conduct of an evaluation exercise for a post that was about to be or had been abolished. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that there was a genuine redundancy situation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence before it to support the Appellant¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.