Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that, while it may be argued that the Appellant did not request her transfer to Amman, she consented to it, and the transfer was effected for her personal convenience. UNAT held that the text of UNRWA Area Staff Rule 107. 9 was clear and that UNRWA DT correctly concluded that she was not entitled to the payment which she sought. UNAT held that, contrary to the Appellant’s submissions, UNRWA DT did not exclude her evidence. Recalling the broad discretion of UNRWA DT to ascertain the weight to attach to the evidence before it, UNAT noted that UNRWA found that the Appellant’s evidence did not demonstrate, in and of itself, that the Appellant had a right to payment of the entitlements. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT’s finding that the Appellant had not demonstrated how the circumstances or conditions of employment of other staff members were relevant to her situation and UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in this regard. UNRWA DT found no error of law or error of fact, manifest or otherwise, on the part of UNRWA DT. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly found that the Appellant’s claims for payment of outstanding travel subsistence allowance (TSA) as well as the additional issues she raised had not been the subject of decision review and thus were not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.