text: decided, taking into account the entire circumstances of your case, to grant you a special post allowance to the P-5 level for a three month period from 1 January 1987 to 31 March 1987 in accordance with the relevant staff rules and to take no further action on the matter. ...". On 14 August 1989, the Applicant filed with the Tribunal the application referred to earlier. Whereas the Applicant's principal contentions are: 1.The Applicant was entitled to a fair and adequate consideration for promotion. 2.The memorandum of 13 March 1987, by the Assistant Secretary-General, OHRM, to the Chairman of the APB clearly constituted an undue interference with the independent functioning of the APB, which was prejudicial to the Applicant. 3.It would be contrary to every notion of fairness and equity to deny the Applicant her promotion because of unforeseen delays occasioned by the Respondent. Whereas the Respondent's principal contentions are: 1.The Secretary-General's established policy not to grant valedictory promotions is a valid exercise of administrative discretion in the interests of the Organization and is consistent with the Staff Regulations which envisage retirement at age 60.- 8 - 2.The Applicant's rights were not violated by suspension of the 1986 promotion review for six months because of the financial crisis. The Tribunal, having deliberated from 26 April to 25 May 1990, now pronounces the following judgement: I.The Tribunal has been informed by the Respondent, at the commencement of its deliberations, that on 17 April 1990, the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management (OHRM) informed the Applicant that he had decided to promote her retroactively to the P-5 level, from 1 October 1986 until the date of her retirement. In reply to a question put by the Tribunal, the Applicant informed the Tribunal that she maintained her application "insofar
analysis: The text appears to be related to an employment dispute within an international organization, specifically the United Nations. The language used is formal and bureaucratic, indicating a formal complaint or appeal process. The content focuses on staff rules, promotion, and administrative decisions, suggesting that the category should be related to employment or human resources.