�鶹��ý

The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence that UNOPS Administration approved the Applicant’s sick leave. Therefore, given that the Applicant was separated from service effective 31 March 2018 and that no sick leave beyond that date had been approved by the UNOPS Administration, the Tribunal found that there was no sick leave to “terminate or retract” as claimed by the Applicant. Having said the above, the Tribunal found that the effective content of the challenged decision communicated to the Applicant on 5 April 2018 concerned the non-extension of her fixed-term appointment for the sole purpose of allowing her to be on sick leave during the period of that extension. Consequently, the legal issue for determination in the present case was whether UNOPS was under an obligation to extend a fixed-term appointment for the sole purpose of allowing a staff member to utilize his or her sick leave entitlement. The answer is negative, as there was no evidence in the case file to conclude that the legal framework of UNOPS provides for such obligation. The Tribunal recalled its ruling in Edwards UNDT/2018/058 that “there is no evidence that the Secretariat Sick Leave Policy (ST/AI/2005/3) expressly provides for its applicability to UNOPS”. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had not shown that UNOPS has accepted the applicability of said policy or that a similar policy establishing the Applicant’s right to have her contract extended for the sole purpose of using her sick leave entitlement exists at UNOPS. Therefore, the application was rejected.