51�Թ�

Regarding the non-installation decision, the Tribunal observed that by the time the Applicant reported on duty, the family restrictions at Naqoura (his duty station) had been in place for six weeks, and the conditions had caused the duty station to be granted a special hardship classification of “D”. The existence of armed conflict and the deteriorating security situation made the presence of dependents at the duty station unsafe. Therefore, the decision not to bring the Applicant’s family to the unsafe area was obviously reasonable. The Tribunal, thus, held that the contested decision not to relocate the Applicant’s family was lawful.

On the NFSA decision, the Tribunal recalled that pursuant to staff rule 3.13, NFSA is paid to staff members who are appointed or reassigned to a non-family duty station. The Tribunal also noted that the Applicant claimed the NFSA for the period of 30 November 2023 to 12 April 2024 when Naqoura was still classified as a family duty station. Therefore, the Applicant was not entitled to the NFSA because for the period indicated in the claim, Naqoura had not been declared a non-family duty station. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the decision to deny the Applicant an NFSA was lawful.

Relating to the PA decision, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant contested an alleged disparity between the post adjustment that he received upon his arrival at Naqoura, and the post adjustment received by staff members onboard at the duty station previously. On this claim, the Tribunal established that existing staff had been paid a higher PA to reflect the previously higher cost of living. The Applicant arrived when the cost-of living was lower and thus received the appropriate PA. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the Applicant’s request was unavailing and found no merit in his challenge to the PA decision.

In view of the above, the Tribunal decided to reject the application in its entirety.