Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that a SPA can only be granted if the conditions of ST/AI/1999/17 are met, inter alia, that the staff member has been assigned to and discharged the full functions of a post which has been both classified and budgeted at a higher level, and that these prerequisites were not met. UNAT held that the denial of the ex gratia payment was lawful. UNAT held that the Administration did not commit any errors in exercising its discretion. UNAT held that the denial of an ex gratia payment did not violate the principle of equal pay for equal value and did not constitute discrimination. UNAT held that the Appellant did not belong to the category of staff who was entitled to receive a SPA and that the different treatment was lawful because different categories of staff members were concerned. Noting that Rule 2008 of the Ãå±±½ûµØWomen Financial Regulations and Rules contained a moral rather than a legal obligation, UNAT opined that any decision on ex gratia payments under Financial Rule 2008 might not produce any direct legal effects and thus could not be regarded as an administrative decision. Noting that no exceptional emergency circumstances existed in the Appellant’s case and Ãå±±½ûµØWomen had restricted the application of Financial Rule 2008 to very exceptional circumstances, UNAT considered that the Secretary-General correctly exercised his discretion in refusing to pay an amount equivalent to the SPA as an ex gratia payment. UNAT dismissed the appeal.