Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Mr. Zeid appealed. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Zeid's request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties; and that an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that there was no evidence of a request for decision review, that the e-mail exchanges whereby Mr. Zeid had made inquiries regarding the reasons for the contested decision were not a request for decision review, but rather were informal attempts to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

On the issue of receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in summarily addressing sua sponte the issue of the receivability of the application when the Commissioner-General did not raise that issue in his reply. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s request for review of the contested decision was filed almost a year after he knew of the implied decision and was, therefore, untimely. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contentions against the participation of the Commissioner-General in the proceedings and to file a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decision that the Appellant did not challenge a discretionary administrative decision that breached the terms of his appointment, rather, he was challenging the rule providing for the manner in which separation benefits should be calculated, including the applicable interest rate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not challenge an appealable administrative decision in that he did not contest a unilateral decision taken by the administration in a precise individual case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly held that the publication of interest...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal against both Order No. 63 (GVA/2014) and Summary judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/061. On the Appellant¡¯s additional filings and motions to submit additional pleadings, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the inclusion of any of the additional material in the appeal and denied the motions. On the Appellant¡¯s motion requesting Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to intervene in matters which fell outside the scope of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion. On the Appellant¡¯s appeal of Order No. 63 (GVA/2014), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the appeal on the basis that her appeal grounds did...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the