Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member did not cite any provision of Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and did not indicate whether any errors by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT in his case related to its jurisdiction, the procedure, a question of law or a question of fact. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective and consequently not receivable.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, nevertheless, reiterated its jurisprudence on some of the issues raised, and agreed with the way the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had determined the amount of in-lieu compensation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s analysis that a claim for compensation for moral damage had to be supported by evidence establishing a causal link between the contested decision and the moral damage alleged. Given the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the staff member¡¯s medical report was silent regarding the cause of his medical condition and that there was only his own testimony on the cause of his moral damage, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the staff member had failed to discharge his burden of proof.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A staff member contested the decision to cancel his invitation to an interview.
In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2022/042, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT rescinded the contested decision, ordered compensation in lieu of rescission in the amount of JOD 100, and declined to award compensation for moral damage. It found that as the Commissioner-General admitted the shortcomings in the recruitment process, it did not need to address the merits of the non-selection and held that the contested decision was not lawfully taken. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT considered the salary difference between the two posts and a high chance of selection.
Legal Principle(s)
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT has the discretion to determine whether to hold an oral hearing or not with the aim to deal with the case efficiently and fairly.
An appeal brief must articulate the aspects in which the lower Tribunal acted in excess of its competence, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, or committed an error of fact or law or error in procedure.
Upon an order of rescission or specific performance, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT is obliged to set an amount as compensation in lieu of rescission which the Commissioner-General may elect to pay.
A claim for compensation for moral damage must be supported by evidence which must establish a causal link between the contested decision and the moral damage alleged. The onus to do so is on the claimant.