2024-UNAT-1414, Tejbir Singh Soni
The UNAT held that the staff member did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior UNAT Judgment. The UNAT found that no new fact was advanced by the staff member that had been unknown either to him or the UNAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. The UNAT was of the view that his application for revision amounted to a restatement of the material already placed before the UNAT, which had been considered and rejected, and constituted an attempt to have the appeal, which had been disposed of, re-heard de novo.
The UNAT dismissed the application for revision.
A former staff member contested his separation from service on the grounds of constructive dismissal and coerced resignation.
In Judgment No. UNDT/2022/003, the UNDT found that the staff member had submitted a management evaluation request out of time and rejected his application as not receivable ratione materiae. The staff member appealed. By Judgment No. 2023-UNAT-1316, the UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT’s Judgment.
The staff member filed an application for revision of the prior UNAT Judgment.
The authority of a final judgment cannot be readily set aside.
An applicant for revision of a judgment must identify the decisive facts that, at the time of the Appeals Tribunal’s Judgment, were unknown to both the Appeals Tribunal and the party applying for revision; that such ignorance was not due to the negligence of the applicant; and that the facts identified would have been decisive in reaching the decision.
Application for revision dismissed.