2018-UNAT-891 | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2018-UNAT-891, Vattapally

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT held that UNDT erred by excluding periods of temporary service from the calculation of consecutive service, as required by Staff Rule 3. 13(a)(iii). UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated and modified the UNDT judgment by rescinding the contested decision, and directed the Secretary-General to make a decision in accordance with former Staff Rule 3. 13(b) in relation to the Appellant’s application for mobility allowance.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to pay him a mobility allowance, asserting that he met the eligibility requirements. UNDT held that the period in which the Applicant held temporary appointments should not count towards the five-year prior consecutive service requirement for the mobility allowance. UNDT held that former Staff Rule 4. 17 provided that when a former staff member is re-employed, the new appointment shall not be considered continuous between the prior and new appointments. UNDT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

Temporary appointments are not precluded from qualifying as part of the five-year prior consecutive service requirement for mobility allowance, as long as a staff member is on a fixed-term appointment when actually receiving it.

Outcome

Appeal granted

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Vattapally

Entity

UNAKRT

Case Number(s)

2018-1184

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York