2023-UNAT-1351, Imran Ahmad Shah
The main issue presented in this appeal was whether the UNDT was correct to dismiss Mr. Shah’s application as not receivable ratione materiae because he was not challenging a final administrative decision. The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly found that an interoffice memorandum that changed the reporting lines for all of the staff who worked on the India side of the United Nations Mission Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) was not an appealable administrative decision because it did not deprive Mr. Shah of his work or affect his functions.
The UNAT also rejected Mr. Shah’s argument that the change in his First Reporting Officer directly affected him because his role within the Field Technology Section of UNMOGIP was being reduced. The UNAT found that the change in his role was the subject of a different administrative decision on reorganization and thus did not call the UNDT judgment into doubt.
Finally, the UNAT held that the UNDT did not have the authority to review Mr. Shah’s allegations of retaliation and harassment when Mr. Shah had not followed the proper procedures for pursuing these allegations.
The appeal was dismissed and the UNDT judgment affirmed.
In Judgment No. UNDT/GVA/2022/044, the UNDT decided that Mr. Shah’s application contesting the change in his reporting line was not receivable ratione materiae because this was not a final administrative decision that affected the terms of his appointment.
Mr. Shah appealed.
The key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member’s terms and conditions of appointment; the administrative decision must have a direct impact on the terms of appointment or contract of employment of the individual staff member.
Administrative decisions might be of general application, seeking to promote the efficient implementation of administrative objectives, policies and goals. In such cases, although the implementation of the decision might impose some requirements in order for a staff member to exercise his or her rights, the decision does not necessarily affect his or her terms of appointment or contract of employment.
A staff member has no right to a particular supervisor or reporting lines.
The Administration has broad discretion to reorganize its operations and departments to meet changing needs and realities.
The Dispute Tribunal does not have authority to review allegations of retaliation and harassment absent a decision of the Administration pursuant to the relevant procedures for addressing such claims.