�鶹��ý

UNAT noted that the Appellant was not bringing a claim that he did not receive the benefits and entitlements which pertained to a temporary appointment, but rather his allegation was that the General Assembly resolutions which gave rise to the rules and administrative issuances regulating his employment did not adhere to the principle of equal pay for equal work and were contrary to a myriad of international human rights instruments to which the Organisation was bound to adhere. UNAT held that the policy change for staff members on temporary contracts was binding on the Secretary-General, who...

ST/IC/2006/60, the legality of which has not been contested by the Applicant, is clear as far as the rates for relocation grant are concerned. It stipulates on the one hand that for single staff members “separating from service following appointments or assignments of one year or more”, the applicable rate is USD10,000, and on the other hand that “for assignments of less than one year” the rate is USD1,200. It is clear that the Applicant, who was assigned to Geneva for six months only because he decided to resign, falls within the latter category. The Administration could thus rely on this...