Keywords
Summary

Keywords

++++

1 . OFFICIALS - DISPUTES WITH THE ADMINISTRATION - CALCULATION OF EMOLUMENTS BY THE ADMINISTRATION - DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE LATTER AND THE OFFICIAL CONCERNED - ACT ADVERSELY AFFECTING AN OFFICIAL

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS, ARTICLE 91 )

2 . OFFICIALS - DISPUTES WITH THE ADMINISTRATION - CHOICE OF THE OFFICIAL CONCERNED BETWEEN APPEAL TO THE COURT AND PRESERVATION OF THE PERIOD FOR LODGING AN APPEAL TO THE COURT BY SUBMITTING A REQUEST THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS WITHIN THAT PERIOD

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS, ARTICLE 91 )

3 . OFFICIALS - REQUEST THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS - PROVISIONAL REPLY FROM THE ADMINISTRATION GIVING NOTICE OF A SUBSEQUENT DECISION - ABSENCE OF DECISION

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS, ARTICLE 91 )

4 . OFFICIALS - APPEAL TO THE COURT - TIME-LIMITS - MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY - EXTENSION NOT PERMISSIBLE

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS, ARTICLE 91 )

5 . OFFICIALS - DISPUTES WITH THE ADMINISTRATION - MEASURE CONFIRMING A PREVIOUS MEASURE - ABSENCE OF ACT ADVERSELY AFFECTING AN OFFICIAL - APPLICATION AGAINST SUCH A MEASURE - PERIOD FOR LODGING AN APPLICATION AGAINST THE PREVIOUS ACT - CANNOT START TO RUN AFRESH

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS, ARTICLE 91 )

Summary

1 . A DOCUMENT DRAWN UP BY THE FINANCIAL CONTROLLER AND THE AUTHORIZING OFFICER OF AN INSTITUTION CONSTITUTES A DECISION WHEN IT INDICATES CLEARLY THAT THE EMOLUMENTS OF A GIVEN OFFICIAL MUST BE CALCULATED ON A DIFFERENT BASIS FROM THAT WHICH THE OFFICIAL HAS CLAIMED AND GIVES REASONS IN SUPPORT THEREOF .

2 . WHEN A DECISION AFFECTS HIM ADVERSELY, THE OFFICIAL CONCERNED HAS THE CHOICE OF EITHER DIRECTLY LODGING AN APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD LAID DOWN BY THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 91 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OR OF PRESERVING THE RIGHT OF APPEAL BY SUBMITTING WITHIN THAT PERIOD UNDER ARTICLE 90 OF THE SAME STAFF REGULATIONS A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DECISION TAKEN RELATING TO HIM .

3 . A MEMORANDUM WHICH MERELY GIVES NOTICE OF A SUBSEQUENT DECISION ON A COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY A SERVANT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A DECISION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 91 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS . ITS EXISTENCE DOES NOT THEREFORE MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE THAT THERE SHOULD BE " NO DECISION " WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT PROVISION .

4 . THE PERIODS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS ARE MATTERS OF PUBLIC POLICY . THEREFORE, THE PROVISION THAT AT THE EXPIRATION OF TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE WHEN A COMPLAINT HAS BEEN LODGED, THE FACT THAT THE AUTHORITY HAS TAKEN NO DECISION MUST BE CONSIDERED AN IMPLIED DECISION REJECTING IT APPLIES EVEN WHERE, AT THE TIME WHEN THAT IMPLIED DECISION IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE, THE SAID AUTHORITY STILL HOPED TO BE ABLE TO GIVE A FAVOURABLE REPLY TO THE COMPLAINT .

5 . A DECISION WHICH MERELY CONFIRMS A PREVIOUS DECISION, EVEN AN IMPLIED DECISION, CANNOT AFFECT AN OFFICIAL ADVERSELY . THEREFORE AN APPEAL LODGED AGAINST THAT SUBSEQUENT DECISION CANNOT START THE PERIOD LAID DOWN BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS FOR LODGING THE APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE PREVIOUS DECISION TO RUN AFRESH .