Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that the Standing Committee correctly determined that the applicable rules provide that the pension participant is required to inform UNJPSF in writing of the benefit election made and of any commutation elected and that there was no provision for third party advisement. UNAT held that the Standing Committee’s reliance on Article 30(b) of the UNJSPF Regulations as a rationale for its finding that a deferred retirement benefit became payable to Ms. Assebe upon her separation from service was flawed on the basis that she did not elect for a deferred retirement benefit. UNAT held that the election provided for by Article 30(b) had no logical or causative connection to the primary election to receive a benefit under Article 29. UNAT held that the Standing Committee erred in relying on the provisions of Article 30 when it affirmed the decision of the UNJSPF CEO to deny Mr. Teklu’s request relating to Article 29 of the UNJSPF Regulations. UNAT held that UNJSPF could not retroactively seek to justify the contested decision on the basis of Article 32(b). UNAT held that the UNJPSF Regulations and Rules did not provide for the situation which presented itself in the case, namely a pension participant who, within two days of being separated from service and who was not of normal retirement age, passed away without having had the opportunity, by reason of her illness, to exercise her right of election pursuant to Article 27 of the UNJSPF Regulations. UNAT held that the argument that Ms. Assebe could have exercised the necessary election prior to being separated from service could not be dispositive of the appeal. UNAT held that the decision of the Standing Committee, relying on the provisions of Article 30(b) to deny the request for an early retirement benefit, could not be regarded as having been arrived at on a rational or sound basis and that it followed that the matter must be remanded. UNAT held that Mr. Teklu’s due process rights had not been violated. UNAT granted the appeal in part. NAT set aside the decision of the Standing Committee and remanded the case to the Standing Committee for due consideration of the matter of Ms. Assebe’s retirement benefits.