UNDT/2019/121, , Arora et al. , Chatuverdi et al. , Daniel et al. and Kapoor et al.
Concerning receivability ratione temporis, the Tribunal found the applications receivable ratione temporis in view that 1) it did not process the Applicants’ 2014/2015 motions for extension of time, thus did not include in its March and June 2015 adjudication of similar cases and 2) in light of UNAT’s reversal of the UNDT’s March and June 2015 judgments. Concerning receivability ratione materiae, the Tribunal considered the fact that the Applicants did not request management evaluation on the grounds that the decision had been taken by a technical body. In this connection, the Tribunal noted the Applicants claim that they did not request management evaluation of the contested decision on the grounds that they relied on a previous position by the Administration in Tintukasiri et al. whereby “requests for management evaluation were not receivable ‘since the decision was taken pursuant to the advice from the [Local Salary Survey Committee (“LSCC”)] in conjunction with salary survey specialists, and as such of a technical body under the terms of staff rule 11.2(b)” and that, as per the Applicants’ claim, in that case, the 山MEU made a determination about LSCCs being “technical bodies” on behalf of the Secretary-General. The Tribunal observed that Administrative practices need to be consistent and uniform over a certain period of time so that staff members rely on and build legitimate expectations in relation to them. The Tribunal was of the view that the position adopted by the 山MEU in one or two cases does not constitute a consistent and coherent administrative practice that could lead the Applicants to build a legitimate expectation on which they could have relied upon and that, furthermore, it does not rise to the level of judicial precedent given the 山MEU’s nature as an administrative body within the Organization. Moreover, the Tribunal was of the view that the fact that the Secretary-General has delegated authority to the 山MEU to perform management evaluations on his behalf cannot lead to conclude that he is bound by MEU’s interpretation of such requirement in one or two specific situations. The Tribunal found that defining a technical body requires a specific delegation of authority to be exercised under the form of an administrative instruction. Finally, the Tribunal found that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory requirement in this case. As the Applicants’ failed to do so, their applications were deemed not receivable ratione materiae.
25 Applicants contested the result of the comprehensive salary scale survey for local staff in India conducted in June 2013.
An application’s receivability is a matter of law that may be assessed even if not raised by the parties and the Dispute Tribunal is competent to review its own competence or jurisdiction in accordance with Article 2(6) of its Statute when determining the receivability of an application (Gehr 2013-UNAT-313, Christensen 2013- UNAT-335). A request for management evaluation is a legal and jurisdictional requirement of a compulsory nature that cannot be waived, neither by the parties nor by the Tribunal. The purpose of management evaluation is to allow the Organization to correct itself or to provide acceptable remedies to the parties in cases where, upon review, it determines that an administrative decision is unlawful or that the correct procedure was not followed.