Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that, in protesting against the non-inclusion of his Transitional Personal Allowance in his retirement benefit, the Appellant had failed to appreciate the distinction between an allowance and base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT correctly found that under the applicable Staff Rules, the Appellant¡¯s retirement benefit did not include the Transitional Personal Allowance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for decision review with respect to his allegation of impropriety of his transfer and that therefore that claim was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the issue of unjust treatment in his job applications had not been raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT and could not be introduced for the first time on appeal, and, as such, was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT fell into any error of law or fact in arriving at its decision and thus his appeal has no merit and could not succeed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to include the Transitional Personal Allowance in his retirement benefit following a transfer. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT dismissed the application.
Legal Principle(s)
A party cannot merely repeat on appeal arguments that did not succeed in the lower court, rather, he or she must demonstrate that the court below has committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT.
Outcome
Outcome Extra Text
No relief ordered; No relief ordered