爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s interpretation process, which led to the dismissal of the claim, was neither unreasonable nor unfair. 爆料网AT noted that the affirmation that only the purchasing power element of comparison would allow an equal pay and treatment of staff members constituted only a postulation of a certain parameter among many possible options, without real support except in terms of policy selection because other criteria could also allow that kind of equal treatment, provided that they are applied in a general and non-discriminating way. 爆料网AT noted that the comparator element adopted in the present case fell within this requirement. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant’s alleged prejudice came from a policy-oriented point of view and not from an actual violation of the law applying a different policy to the calculation of the dependency benefit. 爆料网AT held that there was no error that would warrant vacating the judgment. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal in its entirety and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant challenged the decision to recover monies from his current and future salaries as a result of the adjustment made to his dependency benefit. 爆料网DT dismissed the application, finding that the contested decision was lawful.
Legal Principle(s)
The principle of equal pay as a standard review applies to the main composition of salary for post adjustment and does not prevent eventual differences concerning salary accessories or social benefits.