Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that both the ASC and APD bestow discretion on the Agency to pay an AAA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the two instruments, the ASC and the APD, were easily reconcilable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ASC deals with the specific situation where an Area staff member acts in an International professional post, while the ADP deals with all other cases of acting appointments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no manifest intention or inevitable construction that the Agency intended to abrogate the specific policy in the ASC. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct in its finding that the ASC had not been implicitly abrogated...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that, while ASC No. A/04/2010 did not provide a right to Mr Abusondous to receive an AAA, he did have an expectation that the Agency would ¡°properly exercise its discretion to grant an AAA and [would] be fair in its dealings with him¡±, was correct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault with the reasoning that the Agency¡¯s justification of the decision not to appoint Mr Abusondous as Officer-in-Charge and not to grant him an AAA, namely that the Agency would not have been able to meet the 120-day maximum period to fill the vacancy, was not a reasonable ground for the denial...