text: orcb. Framthe inceptionof thespouseallmance,the~ofthe spause,whichwasaconditionforitspayment,was~iderec2non-existent ifthespouse~soccupational eamings~acertainamunt.No ~lanati~wasevesfurnishedwhydeptrdency~dbedeterminedsolelyby ref-tothe Smumeoftheinoame andnotbyitsamunt. III. In the abseJlce of a satisfactory explanation for this distinction, it isdifficulttoknuwwhat,ifanycriteriamaybeconsideredappmpriateto drawadistinctionbetweencczupational eamingsandpensionsderivedfrom an occupation. IV. ?hekistaryofthe~~tofpensiansbyI~intkiscontext sh0mthattheOqanizationdcesnotseemtohave arrivedatarationale for thedistiEtion,whichatonetimled ittoexcludepensions from occupational eamingsandthentoincludethem. Inreplytoaquestionprt bytheTribmal,theRespondentstatedtha~ WxeICSDStaffRulesand Regulations never defined, prior to 31 May 1988, the term Occcupational eamings8andthefirstattempttodosowasinthefootnote of the Circular Msmrar%bm of 31 May 1988, which specifically excluded pension inan@ frcgn occupational czeudqs". v. As a result of the Circular Memrandum of 31 May 1988, which stated that "incloDne fromothersources (eg. pension, annuities, rental income, . ~inoarne,grants,~larships,etc)isnatincludedinthe 8occupational earnings'~g, theApplicantsutmittedaclaiminrespectofher husbandwithretroactiveeffectuptothemaxinm permissible period. 'Ihat applicationwasgrantedwithoutretroact ive effect, frcnn 1 June 1988 onwards. QI7Decmber1988, anewparagra~ waSaddedtoEWWnSElXWtrU&ion PI/3.7, that effective 1 January 1989, ~periodicpensionpayments,withthe exception of those deriving solely fmm a private superannuationplan, and ummploymnt benefit, shall be mnsidered as 'occupational earniqs'...". Inreplytoa furtherquestion~bytheTrikuna1, theF&spondentstated thatICAOconsideredaprivatesupemnma tion plan to be #'a plan for which theemphyeehasbeensolelyresponsible forthecost involvedandwhichis established on a voluntary basisgl. -7- The Applicant's dependency allowance wasdiscontinuedfrom1January 1989, as her husband*spensionexceededthe maximum amunt all- for ca2upEltionalearnings. Whenthe Applicantappealedthatdecision, shewas grantedade~allowance for the first six mnths of 1988, but her claim to receive it retroactively for a period prior themb and prospectively after 1 January 1989, was rejected. VI. Aspecial featUreof~lJresentcaseisthefaCtthat~pension receivedby~AppliCarrt~shusbandisbeingpaidbytkbeunitedNati~ JointStaff~ion~andwasearned~thePgplicant'shusband~ hisownservicewithICA0. VII. Ihe firstquestiontobedeterminedbythel?ribmaliswhether it is permissible,~anyc~,tocollsi~pensiansas"occupatiaM1 earnings". Itaxldbe arguedthatif %ccupationalearnings~l, arebbe consideredeamings derivedfrormancxxzupation, itwculdbelogicalto exclude~f~thedefinitionofapension,asrmtbeingfrcana~ oocupation. Ontheotherhand,ifpensionsareconsidered,astheyarein sane oountries, as Weferred eaming&', itmuldbe justaslogical~tmat them as %ccupational eamLng@. Acco3xling1y,thechangesin1cAo8s atti~appeartohavea~ti~basisratherthan,asdlleged~the Applicant, to intmdwx legislation specially designed to deprive her of her rights. whateverthereasons forthevariationsinapgmx3chbyICAD,which ledatfirsttopensionsbeingtreatedasoccupatianalearningsandthen, fora~~,asnotbeingso,~thenbytheErresentrule,the Tribunaldoesnatfindthattheyare~i~ordiscriminatory. Hcwever, theTrifXlMldOeSnatloakfavourably~frequentfluctuati~in~ conditionsaffectingstaff msmbars~errtitlm. It is preferable to maintainasystem,despitedoubts mncerkqits justificaticm,untilsuch timeasadefinitiveaxlclusionhasbeen~~onwhatsystesnis~ replace it, ratherthangobackandforthbetweentwcsystem, particularly if nc explanation is furnished for the changes. -8- VIII. !meTrihnalfiMsno reason,inthiscase,to~mwhat ~dbeasuitabledefinitianof"~ti~eamings". 1tnotesthat themostappmpriatetesttodetemhebMtheradepmMcyallowance~ tobe~~earnattoastaff~whosespauseisinreceiptofa pensionwmldseemtobewhether the spouse is or is not eccmmuically depemmtonthesbff~ IX. R‘leTritmalmstnwconsiderwhether theApplicantisentitledto paymentoftheallowance~~ly. InthiSWOn,the~ 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing a specific case related to employee benefits, pensions, and dependency allowances within an international organization (ICA0). The language and context suggest a focus on employment and employee benefits, with references to occupational earnings, pension payments, and staff members. The text also touches on the concept of dependency allowance and its relationship to occupational earnings.