²Ù±ÆÊÓƵapp

UNAT was satisfied that the UNDT’s pronouncement that the clear purpose and intent of Staff Regulation 5.3 was to restrict the entitlement to home leave to those who are serving the UN outside of their home country and by implication their country of nationality, was the correct interpretation. UNAT held that there was no error in law with regard to the UNDT’s approach on the issue of home leave. UNAT held, as a matter of law and fact, that UNDT properly concluded that the Appellant’s move to his country of nationality was a good reason for the Secretary-General to reassess his eligibility for a country of home leave other than the country of nationality. UNAT held that, in light of the Appellant having returned to work and residing in the country of his nationality, he ceased to be eligible for the payment of an education grant. UNAT upheld the UNDT’s finding that the Secretary-General was entitled to refuse the Appellant’s application for an education grant. UNAT held that, while it gave due recognition to the fact that the Administration’s errors impacted adversely on the Appellant, UNDT, in assessing the level of compensation, erred in failing to attach sufficient weight to the reliance placed by the Appellant on the assurances given to him and the reasonable expectations he held, following such assurances. UNAT held that UNDT erred in its conclusion that the payment made by the Administration constituted sufficient satisfaction. UNAT allowed the appeal in part and awarded the increased compensation to two years of the education grant which would have been available to the Appellant for the school years 2006/2007 and 2007/2008.