Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Respondent appeared to have a good reason for cancelling the Applicant’s leave. That having been said, however, the manner in which the Applicant was informed of that decision could have been done in a much better way. Considering the fact that the Applicant’s supervisor had only three days earlier, on 9 August 2011, approved his leave, his one-line directive cancelling the Applicant’s leave was not only callous and dismissive but most insensitive. This managerial shortcoming does not, by itself, render the decision prima facie unlawful.Although some harm is caused to the Applicant in dashing his and his family’s expectations of a reunion during his leave, the said harm suffered by the Applicant must be examined in the light of the Mission and the wider public interest of the Organization. The Applicant can be adequately compensated by monetary damages. The Applicant’s request for suspension of action of the decision to cancel his leave is rejected.