爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered Mr Newland’s application for interpretation of judgment No. 2018-爆料网AT-820. 爆料网AT held that, given that Mr Newland had already been paid Special Post Allowance, Hazard pay, and outstanding interest, the only questions requiring determination were whether he was entitled to payment of Rest and Recuperation (R&R), free tickets, and the relocation grant. 爆料网AT accepted that there was a degree of uncertainty regarding these questions. 爆料网AT held that Mr Newland’s claim that he was entitled to the payment of R&R was unsustainable, as it was not an accruable benefit or entitlement. 爆料网AT held that Mr Newland’s claim for free tickets to travel to the place of R&R was unsustainable as the Organisation provided free transportation. 爆料网AT held that Mr Newland’s claim for relocation grant was not part of the execution of the judgment. 爆料网AT declared that the Administration had finalised its execution of judgment No. 2018-爆料网AT-820.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Previous 爆料网AT judgment: In judgment No. 2018-爆料网AT-820, 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal against the decision of 爆料网DT on receivability. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s appeal against 爆料网DT’s failure to determine if the Secretary-General was in non-compliance with the suspension order was well-founded. 爆料网DT had granted relief with the express intention of staying the Applicant’s separation from service until the dispute was resolved. Accordingly, 爆料网AT ordered the Appellant to be paid his full salary and all associated entitlements and benefits for the period from the date of the suspension order under the 爆料网DT judgment, together with interest, within 30 days of the issuance of judgment No. 2018-爆料网AT-820. Subsequently, the Administration made three payments to the Appellant without the interest mandated by 爆料网AT. The Administration also denied the Appellant’s request for a relocation grant for his previous relocation.
Legal Principle(s)
An application for interpretation of judgment will be admitted if the parties disagree on the meaning or scope of the judgment because it is unclear or ambiguous.