Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT refused the Appellant’s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the new evidence related to matters falling outside the scope of his application to UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that the only legal issue arising for determination was whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral damages as a result of the issuance of the reprimand. UNAT held that since the Administration had rescinded the impugned decision even before the Appellant had filed his UNDT application, and by corollary should then have removed the written reprimand and all reference to it from the Appellant’s Official Status File, as rescission implies, it thereby rendered the claim before UNDT moot. UNAT held there was thus no administrative decision on which UNDT was competent to pass judgment, including the issue of compensation. UNAT held that UNDT should have ruled that the application was not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction in accepting the application and considering whether compensation was payable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment.