2022-UNAT-1276, Ahmad Shuaib Payenda
The UNAT held that the decisive fact which the staff member maintains is sufficient for the revision is a letter that was known to him at the time of his initial application to the UNDT. The UNAT found that the reasons for not presenting it were not persuasive.
The UNAT noted that even if it were to consider the letter known only at the time of the issuance of the previous UNAT Judgment, the application for revision had not been filed on time.
The UNAT was of the view that the staff member’s application for revision constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case and that was...