�山����

Considering that the Applicant opted for payment of the repatriation grant at the dependency rate, two options were open to her husband:

a.To claim a repatriation grant at the single rate for the period of service subsequent to the Applicant’s separation up to the date of his separation from service; or

b.If eligible to a dependency rate, to claim that rate for the whole period of qualifying service, minus the amount of the grant paid to the Applicant.

The evidence on record shows that the Applicant’s husband served three years after the Applicant’s separation. For these three years of non-overlapping service, a single rate applies. From the table in Annex IV to the Staff Regulations, the Tribunal can deduce that the formula applicable to professional staff, for the determination of the number of weeks of gross salary in the calculation of a repatriation grant at the single rate, for “N” years of service below eight years is as follows: (N + 3).

As such, for his three years of non-overlapping service, the Applicant’s husband is entitled to six weeks of gross salary, less staff assessment. As per the calculation of WFP, the Applicant’s husband received 16 weeks of gross salary less staff assessment, which amounted to USD33,606.46. It follows that he would have received USD12,602.42 (33,606.46 × 6/16) for his three years of service. The evidence on record shows that the Applicant would have been paid USD51,514.19 at the dependency rate.

Accordingly, under Operation A scenario, the Applicant and her husband would have been entitled to a total repatriation grant of USD64,116.61 (USD12,602.42 + USD51,514.19).

Had the Applicant’s husband claimed a repatriation grant at the dependency rate, he would have received 28 weeks of gross salary, less staff assessment, minus the amount of the grant that would have been paid to the Applicant at the dependency rate (USD51,514.19).

Bearing in mind that to calculate the total repatriation grant one would have to add back USD51,514.19 (namely, the amount of the grant that would have been paid to the Applicant at the dependency rate), the total repatriation grant under Option B is equal to the Applicant’s husband’s repatriation grant at the dependency rate.

Accordingly, the Applicant’s claim is more financially advantageous than that accorded to her under the contested administrative decision. Consequently, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to direct the Respondent to pay the Applicant the USD1,388 difference with interest calculated as from her husband’s separation date.