Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Rule 109.2

  • 111.2(3)
  • 111.2(3)b
  • Appendix to the Staff Rules 1-D/E effective 2015 (Salary Scale Gaza and West Bank)
  • Former Rule 106.1(16)
  • Former Rule 111.3
  • Former Rule 111.3(2)
  • Former Rule 111.3(4)
  • Rule 103.3
  • Rule 103.5
  • Rule 103.8.1
  • Rule 104.4
  • Rule 105.2
  • Rule 106.1(16)(D)(ii)
  • Rule 106.2
  • Rule 106.2(7)
  • Rule 106.2(9)
  • Rule 106.3
  • Rule 106.3.1
  • Rule 106.4
  • Rule 106.4(8)
  • Rule 107.9
  • Rule 109.1
  • Rule 109.2
  • Rule 109.2(5)
  • Rule 109.2(7)
  • Rule 109.4
  • Rule 109.4(2)
  • Rule 109.4(3)
  • Rule 109.5
  • Rule 109.7
  • Rule 109.7(7)
  • Rule 109.9(3)
  • Rule 110.1
  • Rule 110.2
  • Rule 110.3
  • Rule 111.1
  • Rule 111.2
  • Rule 111.2(1)
  • Rule 111.3
  • Rule 111.3(4)
  • Rule 111.4
  • Rule 112.3(D)
  • Rule 113.1
  • Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Staff Rule 111.2(5)
    • Showing 1 - 5 of 5
    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1506, Amjad Al-Thaher

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s determination of the former staff member¡¯s chances of selection for the position at one-fourth on alternative grounds. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT appropriately considered the possibility that the Agency could have introduced additional candidates on an equivalency basis during a second review after the shortlisting phase. In particular, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT held that, since the sufficient number of candidates for a competitive exercise was normally between three to five candidates per vacancy, it was reasonable to expect that the Agency would have brought more...

    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...

    2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-039, Maghari

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether the Commissioner-General erred in adopting the JAB¡¯s recommendation not to accept the Appellant¡¯s withdrawal letter and whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral and material damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referred to Jordan Field Staff Circular No. J/17/97, which provides that withdrawal of resignations will normally not be accepted unless it is evident that such withdrawal is in the sole interest of the work. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the evidence on record revealed that the Appellant¡¯s services were unsatisfactory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant provided no evidence of...

    2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-853, Madi

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal and held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment was correct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in holding that the Agency¡¯s decision to deny the Appellant a fifth year of SLWOP was both lawful and reasonable. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not establish any grounds of appeal in this regard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also reiterated that the Appellant did not have an unconditional right to EVR and that the Agency had duly considered his request in accordance with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rules and other relevant administrative issuances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT rightly rejected the...

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1029, El Madhoun

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly concluded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had failed to provide sufficiently clear, precise, and intelligible reasoning and had not acted lawfully, reasonably, and fairly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that once a staff member was eligible for EVR in accordance with paragraph 8 of Area Staff Rule 109. 2, paragraph 9 became applicable and its text was clear. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. El Madhoun was eligible for EVR and it was not established that budgetary constraints were either ground for rejecting his request for EVR or for not withdrawing his notice...