Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a part of the staff member¡¯s request for management evaluation appeared not to have been considered by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the information in the MER standard form constituted a request for management evaluation of the contested decisions, including breach of an alleged promise to continue her employment by maintaining funding of her post for a particular period. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had raised sufficiently the issues of the lawfulness of the abolition of her post and the termination of her employment to have met the requirements of their receivability by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that its conclusion was reinforced by other documents. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law in finding the application not receivable.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal, reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, and remanded the case to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for consideration on the merits.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A former staff member contested a decision to abolish her post and the consequential termination of her fixed-term appointment.
In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2025/078, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed her application as not receivable.
The former staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
Receivability is determined, following an objective and informed assessment, by a sufficient and timely request for management evaluation and not by the Administration¡¯s response to that request.