2019-Ģ��ƵAT-907

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the decision to separate the Applicant was arbitrary, discriminatory, constituted an abuse of authority, and was unlawful. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT was not obliged to set an in-lieu compensation amount, as the decision concerned a lateral transfer, not an appointment, promotion, or termination. Ģ��ƵAT upheld Ģ��ƵDT��s finding that Ms. Koduru��s testimony was not compelling enough to serve as a basis for an award of moral damages. Ģ��ƵAT rejected Ms. Koduru��s request for costs. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.
Accountability referral: The Ģ��ƵAT noted that the Ģ��ƵDT found that Ms. Koduru was the victim of abuse of authority and harassment on two occasions by her supervisor, Ms. Farley, who had nationalized Ms. Koduru��s post one year earlier than approved by the General Assembly, and had recruited a new officer in disregard of the Civilian Staffing Review. Ģ��ƵAT referred the matter of Ms. Farley��s conduct to the Secretary-General for accountability.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ms Koduru contested his decision not to renew her contract, following a comparative review process. Ģ��ƵDT held that the decision to separate Ms Koduru was unlawful as it was discriminatory and constituted an abuse of authority. Ģ��ƵDT ordered that the decision not to renew Ms Koduru��s appointment and to separate her from service be rescinded. The Secretary-General was ordered to reinstate Ms Koduru in service for the seven-week period she was separated to ensure her continuity of service should she be reviewed for eligibility for a continuing appointment and after-service health insurance, and to pay Ms Koduru her net base salary and entitlements for the same period.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵDT is only required to set compensation as an alternative to an order of rescission and/or specific performance when a decision touches on and concerns appointment, promotions, and/or terminations.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Korduru

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement