UNDT/2014/063, O'Donnell
The Tribunal observed that the Applicant was necessarily aware of the amount of repatriation grant he would be paid already at the beginning of 2011 when he received his payslip, and not in March 2013 as he claimed when he received details from the Payroll Unit regarding the calculation of the amount received. Indeed, in view of the explanations, the Applicant had received already in February 2011 from the Payroll Unit, which reminded him of the fact that his dependency status with respect to his daughter had been discontinued effective 29 August 2007, and which provided him with an excel file with the differences “Dependent/Single” for the amounts listed in his payslip, the Applicant by then knew or at least should have been reasonably aware that the repatriation grant had been calculated at the single rate and not at the dependency rate. Therefore, February 2011 had to be considered as the date of the notification of the decision, and since the Applicant had submitted his request for management evaluation only in April 2013, it was clearly time-barred. Hence, the Tribunal concluded that the application was irreceivable.
The Applicant challenged the payment of his repatriation grant at the single rather than at the dependency rate.
Receivability ratione materiae: -- A payslip can contain an administrative decision regarding the amount of entitlement. -- The deadline to contest administrative decisions included in a payslip starts to run from the day of its receipt.-- Subsequent explanations regarding payments previously included in a payslip do not amount to a new administrative decision and do not reset the clock for contesting the initial administrative decision.