爆料网DT/2021/071, Caylan
爆料网DT held that since the Applicant was separated due to the expiration of her fixed-term appointment, her separation could not be considered a termination pursuant to staff rule 9.6(b). Therefore, the retainment criteria referred to in staff rule 9.6(e) was not applicable to the Applicant’s case, and she was not entitled to a termination indemnity pursuant to staff regulation 9.3(c). 爆料网DT held that the contested decision was lawful and that the Applicant was not entitled to the remedies requested. 爆料网DT rejected the application in its entirety.