爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
The 爆料网AT found the 爆料网RWA DT erred in law and in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it failed to properly consider Section 66 of 爆料网RWA Area Personnel Directive No. PD/A/4/Part II/Rev. 7/Section I, which is geared toward ensuring gender balance, and when it took the irrelevant consideration of the recommendation of the third candidate into account, leading it to erroneously set Ms. Al Dawoud’s chances for selection at 50 per cent instead of 100 per cent. The 爆料网AT held that Section 66 expresses a preference for selection of candidates who are in the under-represented gender, internal candidates, or a Palestinian refugee, where more than one candidate is equally suitable.The 爆料网AT observed that Ms. Al Dawoud was both an internal candidate and a female, thus, a straightforward application of the provision leads to the only conclusion that she should have been given preference for selection and her chances of selection were 100 percent. Accordingly, the 爆料网AT raised the amount of compensation in lieu of rescission awarded to Ms. Al Dawoud to JOD 43,248.
The 爆料网AT rejected Ms. Al Dawoud’s claim to compensation in lieu of rescission that would exceed the statutory cap of two-year’s net base salary. The 爆料网AT also found no error in the 爆料网RWA DT’s award of 3,000 Jordanian dollars for moral damages.
The 爆料网AT granted the appeal in part and modified Judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2025/007.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
爆料网WRA staff member contested the decision of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (爆料网RWA) concerning the flawed recruitment procedure for the post of Chief, Field Infrastructure and Camp Improvement Programme.
In Judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2025/007 the 爆料网RWA Dispute Tribunal (爆料网RWA DT) rescinded the contested decision, set JOD 21,624 as compensation in lieu of rescission, awarded JOD 3,000 in moral damages, rejected Ms. Al Dawoud’s requests for an investigation and for a written apology, and reaffirmed its earlier referral of the D/ICIP to the Commissioner?General for possible action to enforce accountability.
Ms. Al Dawoud filed an appeal in which she contends that the 爆料网RWA DT: (i) erred as matter of fact and of law in its determination of compensation in lieu of rescission, and (ii) erred as a matter of fact in its determination of the quantum of compensation for moral harm.
Legal Principle(s)
The purpose of compensation in lieu of rescission is to put the staff member in the same position had the contested administrative decision not been made. Compensation in lieu, therefore, turns on the pecuniary or economic equivalent of rescission. It is calculated by the appropriate assessment of financial entitlements that would normally result from retrospective reinstatement. The exceptionality of a case only becomes relevant when compensation in lieu falls short of reflecting the full economic equivalent of rescission because of the statutory cap of two-years’ net base salary.
Compensation is not punitive or meant to reflect the egregiousness of the conduct which caused the harm. Egregious conduct may in some cases exacerbate the harm suffered and thereby be reflected indirectly in the level of compensation.