����AV

Receivability: The wording of both staff rule 11.2(c) and 11.2(d) is identical in its use of the words “calendar days;” and if […] the Rules are clear for the staff member they should be equally clear for the Secretary-General.When it comes to the interpretation of identical legal provisions that regulate the same situation there cannot be different interpretations depending on the administrative convenience of the Organization or those who head specific sections of the Organization.MEU must have regard to the provisions on the computation of time in the rules governing the Tribunal. The Tribunal takes the view that it could not have been the intention of the framers of the Staff Rule, in the absence of any express provision, to include in the term “calendar days” the days on which the Organization is not working.While art. 8.3 of the Statute prohibits the Tribunal from waiving or suspending deadlines for management evaluation, it does not bind the Tribunal to findings of timelines made by MEU. A decision of MEU is therefore not binding on the Tribunal. Merits: The Respondent has the authority to institute recovery of overpayments made to a staff member, within the terms of ST/AI/2009/1. Primarily, it is the responsibility of the Respondent to ensure that overpayments are not made through error, inadvertence or negligence. These repeated lapses place both the Organization and staff members in an invidious position and is not cost effective for proper administration or good governance.Since the Respondent confessed that they made an error, the investigation in the claims made by the Applicant was ill-advised, misconceived and an absolute waste of the Organization’s resources. The Respondent needed to do little more than to institute corrective measures and bring closure to the whole matter. The Tribunal wonders therefore whether the investigation was instituted to cover its own lapses and assign the Applicant with blame for these lapses. The very basis of the investigation can only have been one of bad faith.Tribunal awards the Applicant with three months net base salary for the moral injury of having been subject to an unnecessary investigation and the financial stress that resulted from the Respondent’s error and negligence with the Organization’s resources.