��DT/2012/208

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

The ��DT found that the contested decision was based on improperly imposed conditions not stipulated under staff rule 4.18 and thus lacked proper legal basis. Further, it was arbitrary and manifestly unreasonable. Therefore, the contested decision was unlawful. The ��DT found that, had the discretion been properly exercised on the stipulated conditions, the Applicant would have been reinstated in service and shall be treated as such. The ��DT ordered rescission of the contested decision. The ��DT ordered that the Applicant be deemed as reinstated in service and that proper adjustments be made to his entitlements and benefits in line with the judgment and staff rule 4.18.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the Respondent��s refusal to reinstate him to service following his separation from the United Nations Mission in C?te d��Ivoire (��OCI��) and his re-appointment to the United Nations Assistance to the Khmer Rouge Tribunals (��AKRT��).

Legal Principle(s)

Purpose of reinstatement under staff rule 4.18: The purpose of staff rule 4.18 is to confer continuity of employment on former staff members with fixed-term or continuing appointments who have been re-employed, and who may then be reinstated under staff rule 4.18, on the same type of contract within 12 months of their separation. Conditions for reinstatement under staff rule 4.18: A plain reading of staff rule 4.18 is that the only stipulated qualifying criteria for a staff member��s reinstatement is that he should have held a fixed-term or continuing appointment, and that he was re-employed under a fixed-term or a continuing appointment within twelve months of his separation. No further conditions for reinstatement have been established by the Secretary-General under staff rule 4.18.

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

Outcome Extra Text

Only specific performance (including rescission with in lieu compensation)

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��AT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Egglesfield

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement