2016-UNAT-629, Prasad et al.
UNAT held that UNDT had not addressed the Appellantsā request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellantsā request for more time into applications. UNAT held that UNDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellantsā due process rights. UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment and...