��DT/2020/141

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence that ��OPS Administration approved the Applicant��s sick leave. Therefore, given that the Applicant was separated from service effective 31 March 2018 and that no sick leave beyond that date had been approved by the ��OPS Administration, the Tribunal found that there was no sick leave to ��terminate or retract�� as claimed by the Applicant. Having said the above, the Tribunal found that the effective content of the challenged decision communicated to the Applicant on 5 April 2018 concerned the non-extension of her fixed-term appointment for the sole purpose of allowing her to be on sick leave during the period of that extension. Consequently, the legal issue for determination in the present case was whether ��OPS was under an obligation to extend a fixed-term appointment for the sole purpose of allowing a staff member to utilize his or her sick leave entitlement. The answer is negative, as there was no evidence in the case file to conclude that the legal framework of ��OPS provides for such obligation. The Tribunal recalled its ruling in Edwards ��DT/2018/058 that ��there is no evidence that the Secretariat Sick Leave Policy (ST/AI/2005/3) expressly provides for its applicability to ��OPS��. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had not shown that ��OPS has accepted the applicability of said policy or that a similar policy establishing the Applicant��s right to have her contract extended for the sole purpose of using her sick leave entitlement exists at ��OPS. Therefore, the application was rejected.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contests the decision to ��terminate or retract�� her sick leave causing her separation.

Legal Principle(s)

A fixed-term appointment does not carry any expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal or conversion, irrespective of the length of service, and shall expire automatically and without prior notice on the expiration date specified in the letter of appointment.

Outcome

Dismissed on merits

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

Patkar

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement