2026-Ģ��ƵAT-1635

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Appeals Tribunal found that the mobility allowance serves as an incentive to encourage movement of staff members to field duty stations in accordance with the Organization��s needs and it is not, as the Ģ��ƵDT found, designed to cover the actual costs of relocation and living in a particular duty station. However, Ģ��ƵISFA, did conduct, as instructed, a new recruitment exercise which allowed Mr. Oppal to compete again. The Appeals Tribunal concluded that since Mr. Oppal did not apply for the re-advertised position thereby choosing to give up the opportunity to receive the mobility incentive, his claim for compensation for loss of mobility allowance could not succeed. The Appeals Tribunal therefore agreed with the outcome of Ģ��ƵDT Judgment and dismissed the appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application of Mr. Oppal, a staff member with the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (Ģ��ƵAMA), challenging the decision not to select him for a position with the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (Ģ��ƵISFA). The Ģ��ƵDT found that although Mr. Oppal had established a procedural error and that, excluding the unlawfully selected candidate, he had a one-third chance of being selected, he had suffered no actual prejudice. In response to Mr. Oppal��s request for management evaluation, Ģ��ƵISFA conducted a new recruitment exercise and as a result, Mr. Oppal still had an opportunity to compete for the position. In addition, the Ģ��ƵDT found that the mobility incentive/allowance was intended to cover the actual costs of relocation and living in a particular duty station and since Mr. Oppal had not been relocated, the non-payment of Mr. Oppal��s mobility allowance was not an economic loss. Finally, the Ģ��ƵDT found that Mr. Oppal had suffered no additional economic loss as the contested position was at the same P-4 level at which he served.

Mr. Oppal appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

Under Staff Rule 3.11 (Mobility incentive) and Section 1.3 of Administrative Instruction ST/AI/2016/6, the mobility incentive is designed to encourage movement of staff members to field duty stations in accordance with the Organization��s needs. It is an allowance paid upon appointment to a post and not a reimbursing allowance for expenditure incurred by the staff member in taking up or occupying that post. The mobility allowance is payment made for the staff member��s preparedness to be mobile.

Parties should follow the guidance of the Registry when filing submissions. Otherwise, they risk rejection of their filings, and even denial of case registration in the case of an appeal.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

Mr. Oppal��s appeal is dismissed, and Judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2025/019 is affirmed, albeit with different reasoning.

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

Zahed Oppal

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement