¹ú²úAV

UNAT held that it was not persuaded that UNRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. UNAT held that UNAT held that there was no reason to differ from UNRWA DT’s findings that UNRWA had no reason to refer the Appellant to a medical board and that the issue was not relevant as the Appellant did not contest that he was unfit for service, nor did he allege that his health problems were related to his service with UNRWA. UNAT further noted that, as the Appellant was over sixty years of age, he was not eligible for a disability...

UNAT held that there was no evidence before it to support the contention that UNRWA DT erred in law. UNAT upheld the findings of UNRWA DT that there was no evidence that the decision to abolish the Appellant’s post was arbitrary or capricious, motivated by prejudice or extraneous factors, or was flawed by procedural irregularity or error of law. UNAT held that there was evidence of a process that was motivated by budgetary constraints as well as concerns about the effective management of a redundancy process. UNAT found no procedural irregularity or any error in law on the part of UNRWA DT...

UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT’s finding. UNAT held that no purpose would have been served by the conduct of an evaluation exercise for a post that was about to be or had been abolished. UNAT accepted the UNRWA DT’s finding that there was a genuine redundancy situation. UNAT held that there was no evidence before it to support the Appellant’s contention that UNRWA DT erred in law. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.