����AV

The Tribunal held that the Applicant’s challenge in relation to the decision to cancel his administrative leave (“AL”) was without merit. The Tribunal reasoned that the evidence showed that the Applicant was placed on AL after UNOPS had received allegations of intimidation, harassment and other misconduct against him in the Sudan office. The Applicant did not contest the decision to place him on AL but only the decision informing him that his AL had not been extended and that no disciplinary action was being taken against him regarding the allegations. Accordingly, the decision not to extend the Applicant’s AL did not affect adversely his conditions of employment and as such, he had no standing to contest it. With regard to the decision to refuse to abide by the terms of the Applicant’s temporary reassignment in Sudan, the Tribunal noted that while the Applicant’s assignment to Sudan took place in December 2013, he only contested the terms of such assignment when he was separated from UNOPS following the non-renewal of his appointment on 30 June 2015. The Applicant did not submit any evidence in support of the alleged agreement that he would be reassigned to his former position in the Congo at the end of assignment in Sudan. On the decision not to extend the Applicant’s appointment beyond 30 June 2015, the Tribunal held that his application in respect of this decision was not receivable as it was time-barred. The Applicant became aware of non-renewal of his appointment on 20 March 2015. He requested management evaluation on 18 August 2015 which is well after 60 calendar day deadline set out in staff rule 11.2(c ).