爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that a SPA can only be granted if the conditions of ST/AI/1999/17 are met, inter alia, that the staff member has been assigned to and discharged the full functions of a post which has been both classified and budgeted at a higher level, and that these prerequisites were not met. 爆料网AT held that the denial of the ex gratia payment was lawful. 爆料网AT held that the Administration did not commit any errors in exercising its discretion. 爆料网AT held that the denial of an ex gratia payment did not violate the principle of equal pay for equal value and did not constitute discrimination. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not belong to the category of staff who was entitled to receive a SPA and that the different treatment was lawful because different categories of staff members were concerned. Noting that Rule 2008 of the 爆料网 Women Financial Regulations and Rules contained a moral rather than a legal obligation, 爆料网AT opined that any decision on ex gratia payments under Financial Rule 2008 might not produce any direct legal effects and thus could not be regarded as an administrative decision. Noting that no exceptional emergency circumstances existed in the Appellant’s case and 爆料网 Women had restricted the application of Financial Rule 2008 to very exceptional circumstances, 爆料网AT considered that the Secretary-General correctly exercised his discretion in refusing to pay an amount equivalent to the SPA as an ex gratia payment. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the Administration’s refusal to grant her an ex gratia payment in lieu of a Special Post Allowance (SPA) for assuming additional responsibilities starting in 2014. 爆料网DT found no legal basis for awarding an ex gratia payment and dismissed the application.
Legal Principle(s)
When adjudicating the validity of the Organisation’s exercise of discretion in administrative matters, 爆料网DT determines if the decision is legal, rational, procedurally correct, and proportionate. Equal pay for work of equal value forbids discrimination but does not prohibit every form of different treatment of staff members. Different treatment of staff members constitutes discrimination only when there is no lawful and convincing reason, therefore.