Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

PD A/9/Rev.10

  • 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 - 6 of 6
    2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-927, Jafari

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the legal framework did not establish an automatic right of the staff member to the extension of his or her service beyond the age of retirement upon the submission of the pertinent application, even if she or he satisfied those two conditions. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, contrary to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding, the Administration has the discretion to deny a request to extend a staff member¡¯s service beyond retirement only in exceptional cases and on account of the interests of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA, which must be reflected clearly and precisely in the reasoning for the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

    2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-942, El Shaer

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had not voluntarily absented himself from duty. Rather, he reported for duty throughout at the office he had been re-assigned to, his whereabouts were known to the Agency and he clearly did not intend to abandon his position. As to the staff member¡¯s refusal to report to his original position as instructed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his conduct might have been a performance or conduct issue open to censure or discipline. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Agency failed to determine if the conduct constituted insubordination and, if so, a proportional sanction. Instead, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

    2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-898, Amarah

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Amarah and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2018/041 and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2018/004. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues pertaining to the CSO selection process and the contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had waived the condition of the 18-month separation after the EVS were not properly before it, as they had not been raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and were therefore not receivable. Noting that Mr Amarah had breached the prohibition of employment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he could not be allowed to breach the rules knowingly, engage in unlawful...

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1016, Abu Ata et al

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exercised its discretion to consolidate the cases lawfully and appropriately. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational to abolish the posts and reclassify them from full-time to part-time posts at that time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants¡¯ contention that their acquired rights were violated had no merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1023, Sirhan

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals from both Mr. Sirhan and the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exceeded its competence and erred in fact and law by rescinding the decision to terminate Mr. Sirhan on medical grounds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to convene a Medical Board more than one month after Mr. Sirhan¡¯s service-incurred injury in order to examine his fitness for continued service with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA was reasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law in interpreting the Area Staff Rules as requiring Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to provide injured staff members adequate time for recovery before deciding to appoint a...

    2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1124, Commissioner-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in concluding that the Agency had failed to observe its own regulatory framework and failed to act lawfully, reasonably and fairly in exercising its discretion. The discretion of the Commissioner-General to reject a request for these benefits such as EVS is not unfettered.