Ãå±±½ûµØ

On the Appellants’ request for an oral hearing, UNAT held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case since the sole issue on appeal was an issue of law (receivability). On the Appellants’ request that the appeal be heard by a full bench, UNAT held that neither the President nor any two judges sitting on the appeal found the case raised a significant question of law warranting a full bench and denied the request. UNAT held that: UNDT was competent to review its own competence or jurisdiction; UNDT correctly applied the jurisprudence of UNAT in the definition of administrative decision; and UNDT correctly opined that when UNAT had determined its jurisprudence on a precise legal question, it was not appropriate for UNDT to examine the jurisprudence developed by other jurisdictions. UNAT upheld the UNDT’s reasoning that the issuance of secondary salary scales did not amount to an administrative decision and held that UNDT did not make an error of law when it refused to receive the Appellant’s claim challenging the issuance of secondary salary scales for staff hired on or after 1 March 2012. UNAT upheld the UNDT’s reasoning that the salary freeze did not constitute an administrative decision and that it was a measure with regulatory power that UNDT had no competence to rescind. UNAT held that UNDT did not make an error of law when it refused to receive the Appellants’ claim regarding the salary freeze. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.