�山����

Decisions (a) and (b) are found not receivable and decision (c) is found to be unfounded. The Tribunal also finds that the Applicant’s request for management evaluation (MEU request) included a request for SPA which was not addressed by the Organization. The Applicant did not pursue the applicable procedure established in ST/AI/1998/9. In the absence of an actual administrative decision denying a request for reclassification, the application against the continuous refusal to reclassify his post from the P-4 level to the P-5 level is not receivable.The Applicant’s MEU request indicated that he was seeking “monetary compensation for the P5 level work that [he] has been doing with P-4 benefits since June 2003”. The Tribunal considers that his request for management evaluation represents a request for SPA for the period following the 2009 reclassification of his post to the date a new Chief, SISS, was appointed.The Tribunal finds that the request for SPA was neither considered, brought before, or analyzed by the Executive Secretary, ESCAP nor was it reviewed by the MEU. Since the request for retroactive compensation, namely SPA, represents a new legal matter, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to remand it to the Administration for consideration within 90 days.As established by the MEU, the Applicant did not contest his non-selection for the P-5 level post of Chief, SDAS, within the applicable time limits. In the absence of request to the MEU, the appeal against this decision is not receivable.The Applicant’s right to be fairly and fully considered for the P-5 post of Chief, SISS, was respected and the selection was not affected by any procedural irregularities.