Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Almasri did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment. Mr. Almasri¡¯s primary complaint was that the remedy awarded to him failed to make him eligible for a better retirement pension based on a longer deemed service and contribution history.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that no new fact was advanced by Mr. Almasri that had been unknown either to him or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. Instead, it was Mr. Almasri¡¯s negligence that brought about his factual ignorance...