51³Ô¹Ï

Estoppel - It was argued on behalf of the Respondent that the Applicant has waived or is estopped from enforcing his right to challenge the contested decision since at the Applicant’s request, the Administration in good faith deferred the effective date of termination of his appointment to enable him to acquire a pension benefit. Given the circumstances of this case, the Applicant had neither waived nor was he estopped from enforcing his rights to challenge the contested decision. The principles of waiver and estoppel will not apply in such a case to deny an Applicant from enforcing his legal rights, if any. Due Process - The decision to terminate the Applicant’s appointment under staff regulation 9.3 and staff rule 9.6(c)(i) was lawful. The decision was motivated by the necessities of service which required the reduction of the number of staff in UNMISS.