Home

Given the degree of contradiction as to the issues relevant for both the deduction and the recovery decisions, the Tribunal finds that a few preliminary remarks on the applicable law are merited. (...) It follows that MONUSCO’s decision to make deductions and recoveries from his monthly salary pending the final decision of the Court of Appeal of Cameroon was unlawful. 36. (...) It follows that the decision of 24 September 2018 in the matter of recoveries conforms to the controlling judgments.

At the same time, in the February 2020 final payment, the advance of USD63,295.32 was recovered. The recovery of the advance of USD63,295.32 corresponds to the figure of “EG ADV Recovery” 51 Respondent’s submission in response to Order Nos. 39 and 57 (NBI/2021), annex R/39 (August 2018 ay slip). 52 Respondent’s submission in response to Order Nos. 39 and 57 (NBI/2021), para 7. (...) Case No.: UNDT/NBI/2019/117 Judgment No.: UNDT/2021/053 Page 12 of 21 (education grant advance recovery) in the deductions of the February 2020 pay slip.54 27. (...) Case No.: UNDT/NBI/2019/117 Judgment No.: UNDT/2021/053 Page 21 of 21 from the matter of recoveries that have not been implemented and remain outstanding. 54.

On 11 August 2017, the Applicant filed a claim contesting the following two administrative decisions: a. Recovery in respect of salary paid while on sick leave and recovery of an Education Grant advance and Travel. (...) In addition, there was also an issue of recovery of a lump sum payment of USD1,629 in respect of education grant travel. (...) The Tribunal finds that the Respondent’s erroneous recovery of salary payments made to the Applicant for the period 8 October to 15 November 2016 did contribute to some degree to the extent and severity of the harm suffered.

She contests the decision “not to apply the provisions of [sec.] 3.1 of ST/AI/2009/1 [Recovery of overpayments made to staff members] … with respect to the recovery of dependency allowances paid to her in support of her mother for 2010”. (...) In the Tribunal’s considered view, the cost of the proceedings before it—even taking the present withdrawal into consideration—certainly outweighed the recovery amount in question. It would be advisable if similar types of cases were resolved even before the initiation of formal proceedings.

Yet, on 2 November 2012, the Applicant responded that his first nationality and that of his wife and children was Albanian and that he found it unreasonable to retroactively advice of the recovery of education grant. He noted that if that Case No. (...) ST/AI/2009/1 provides for recovery of overpayment by means of deductions; full retention of salary (leave balance) constitutes a breach of the administrative instruction; the latter also requires an agreement between the staff member and the Administration on the mode of recovery; UNOPS did not try to reach such an agreement with him; p. (...) It follows from the above that any claim against the decision that he was not entitled to education grant and against the recovery of the overpayment are clearly time-barred. 52.

The decision was that the Administration would pay the expenses to relocate the Applicant’s family to Lebanon subject to recovery of the repatriation expenses from the Applicant. 16. UNIFIL arranged for the travel of the Applicant’s family from India to Lebanon on 29 August 2017. RSCE initiated recovery of the repatriation travel costs in November 2017 through eight installments. (...) Pursuant to sec. 1(a) of ST/AI/2009/1 (Recovery of overpayments made to staff members), the Organization is duty bound to correct its mistakes and put an end to the illegal situation by proceeding with recovery.

In addition, the Income Tax Unit has indicated that it has no objection to delay the recovery of the overpayment for six months, that is, well beyond the timeframe required for a response by the Management Evaluation Unit on his request; Irreparable damage f. (...) Firstly, the Respondent and the Tribunal are not to involve themselves on how staff members arrange their personal finance; secondly, mere financial loss is not enough to satisfy the test of irreparable harm; lastly, any financial loss to the Applicant due to recovery of overpayment may be compensated, if appropriate. (...) Without prejudice to the above, it should also be noted that the contested statement does not constitute an instruction from the Organization to the Applicant to pay the litigious amount back by a certain date, even less the announcement of the actual recovery of the same. In fact, the Income Tax Unit stated that it is ready to postpone the recovery of the said amount by six months.

The Applicant, a staff member of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (“OHCHR”), contests the “[r]evocation of single parent allowance and retroactive recovery thereof”. Facts and procedural history 2. (...) On 28 July 2021, the Chief, HRMS, UNOG, recommended to the Chief, HRMS, OHCHR, to limit the recovery to the period of 1 May 2019 through 30 April 2021 as provided in sec. 3 of ST/AI/2009/1 (Recovery of overpayments made to staff members). (...) Having reviewed the application and its annexes, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant essentially contests the Administration’s decision to discontinue the payment of the single parent allowance and the retroactive recovery of the amount unduly paid to the Applicant. 26.

The Administration further noted that the RSCE could decide to treat the USD1,370 that the Applicant had received from Cigna as an overpayment and thus as indebtedness to the Organisation, and seek its recovery prior to releasing his final entitlements.3 7. (...) These include, but are not limited to, the following administrative measures: (i) Written or oral reprimand; (ii) Recovery of monies owed to the Organization; … 10. (...) The crux of the matter, thus, is in recovery of monies owed to the Organization as contemplated in staff rule 10.2 and section 9.5 of ST/AI/2017/1.