Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in fact or law in its determination that the applicable Information Circular did not entitle the Appellant to an EOSA, nor was it contrary to a higher legal norm. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the facts of the case showed that her resignation did not fulfil the conditions required by the quoted circular. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT specifically noted how the resignation was taken knowing the risks involved and caused the break in service, which determined the ineligibility for collecting the allowance claimed for, acknowledging that the Appellant was requesting an exception from the regulations to receive it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Administration, having duly considered the request, exercised legitimate discretion in deciding not to grant the exception to the applicable Information Circular. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the impugned decision could not be substituted by the Tribunals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the Secretary-General¡¯s refusal to pay her an EOSA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant was not entitled to an EOSA and dismissed her application.
Legal Principle(s)
In cases of resignation, payment of an end-of-service allowance (EOSA) is subject to the condition of having demonstrated three or more years of continuous service with a respective office prior to joining another organisation in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ common system without a break of service.