The Applicant seeks: (a) Rescission of the decisions: - to declare him redundant; - to remove his name from the vacancy Roster in Round 2; - to stop him from going on missions; - concerning his PPRs for 1986 and 1987; and - of the Appeals Committee recommendation denying him relief.
 

In this case, the Applicant’s appointment as a Secretary level D was terminated for unsatisfactory performance. She was not reassigned to another branch of the Bank because the Acting Vice President, Personnel, considered that there were no good prospects for her satisfactory performance elsewhere in the Bank. After going through its procedural requirements, the Bank terminated the Applicant’s employment. It is this decision that the Applicant contests.

Against this application the Respondent has raised a jurisdictional issue, based on the alleged noncompliance by the Applicant with the statutory requirement of exhaustion of internal remedies. The Respondent’s request to separate the jurisdictional issue from the merits having been granted, the present judgment will address this issue without going into the merits.

In this case the Applicant contests the Respondent’s decision to terminate his employment pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in a letter dated September 30, 1987, where he was awarded two months special leave and compensation equivalent to six months net pay. The Applicant claims instead the compensation and benefits accorded under the Enhanced Separation Package, plus other consequential forms of relief.

The main issue in this case is whether the Respondent has failed to observe the conditions of employment of the Applicant by indicating that it will refuse to regrant her, upon renouncing the citizenship of her duty station country, the expatriate benefits she will lose as a result of previously having acquired that citizenship.

The case raises three distinct but closely related questions: (1) did the Respondent act in accordance with prescribed procedures in grading the position of PTCO at level 25; (2) did the Respondent otherwise act in an improperly motivated manner; and (3) did the Respondent err so seriously in the substantive grading of the PTCO position that its decision was manifestly unreasonable?
 

The Applicant contends that she was entitled by the Respondent’s written rules to be considered for assignment in the management-selection round of the Reorganization. The Respondent contends that she was not so entitled because she was not at the time a “manager” as defined in Staff Rule 5.09, para. 1.05 (b).

The Applicant contends that the Respondent violated his contract of employment and terms of appointment when, after the loss of his level 26 position as Division Chief in the pre-Reorganization Bank, he was not placed in another level 26 position for which he was qualified while more than fifty level 26 positions were given to staff members who were promoted from level 25. He claims that “the selection of a lower level staff member into positions for which Applicant was qualified is per se a violation of his essential employment rights.” He bases that claim on the Bank’s Principles of Staff Employment, on its staff rules and past practices, and on the decisions of the Tribunal. The Applicant contends that his non-selection constitutes a violation, or improper unilateral amendment, of an “essential element” of his conditions of employment.

The Applicant contests the below normal merit increases awarded to him in 1986 and 1987. He maintains in essence that these low merit increases constitute an abuse of managerial discretion, since the accusations of malperformance put forward by the Respondent in order to justify them “stem basically from parochial prejudices and resentment on the part of (his) supervisor”.

The question is whether the Applicant’s non-selection was unlawful, as he claims. The Tribunal is satisfied that on the contrary it was lawful. The decision not to select the Applicant was taken in the exercise of a discretionary power. The reasons for the Applicant’s non-selection were explained to him. He realized his own shortcomings, and that was why he elected to accept Package B and leave the Bank.
 

The Applicant filed an application before the Tribunal on which the Tribunal gave judgment in Decision No. 73 on November 7, 1988. The Tribunal noted: While the Applicant has made a request for costs he has not submitted to the Tribunal an itemized statement of costs at the conclusion of the proceedings. The Tribunal then decided to award the Applicant costs in the amount of $1,000. In this proceeding to revise the earlier judgment, the Applicant alleges that the costs incurred by him amounted to $7,121.
 

The central issue in this case is whether failure of the Respondents to carry out a comprehensive review of staff compensation in 1987 and 1988 as prescribed by the Kafka Committee, and laid down by the management of the Respondents, constituted a non-observance of the conditions of employment or terms of appointment of the Applicants.

The Applicant seeks rescission of the following administrative decisions: (a) Determination in the 1985/86 and 1986/87 evaluations that the Applicant’s performance was less than fully satisfactory. (b) Denial of normal merit increase effective May 1, 1987; (c) Redundancy notice of January 7, 1987; and (d) Non-selection during the 1987 Bank Reorganization.

The Applicant states in her pleadings that the present application is not an appeal against non-selection in the course of the 1987 Reorganization and that she is not contesting her redundancy, nor seeking compensation for loss of employment. The Applicant asserts that she is seeking compensation for an alleged breach of the contract of employment, because the Bank failed to meet its obligations flowing from its Training Policy. The Applicant thus bases her case entirely on the contention that the Respondent assumed an obligation under its Training Policy to provide her with the opportunity to demonstrate and employ the newly acquired skills which she obtained through the studies undertaken, which were selected by her supervisors, monitored by them and partly financed by the Respondent. The failure to provide such an opportunity would constitute, in the Applicant’s view, a breach of the contract of employment justifying her pleas for compensation.
 

The Applicant claims compensation in the amount of the difference between the terms of the Enhanced Separation Package (Package B) and the terms of the separation he actually received, plus interest and attorney’s fees. His main contention is that he is entitled to receive the Enhanced Separation Package established by Staff Rule 5.09, para. 9.03.

The Applicant contends that the terms of her separation from the Bank constituted a violation of her conditions of employment, specifically of Staff Rule 5.09, paragraph 7.06. That staff rule, among other things, promulgated procedures to be followed in the course of the 1987 reorganization of the Bank. The Applicant contends that, although she satisfied all of the listed criteria in this paragraph she was denied the Enhanced Separation Package and she was compelled to separate from the Bank with less favorable financial terms. The issue of interpretation that is before the Tribunal is the meaning of the phrase “selected for a position at their current or higher grade level,” as that applies to a staff member who, at the time of the reorganization, was assigned to the Temporary Assignment Program (TAP) in the Personnel Management Department. 

 The Applicant contends that the Respondent acted arbitrarily and vindictively in failing to assign him to a managerial position in the course of the 1987 reorganization. He claims, in particular, that the personal hostility of his supervisors – his departmental director and his senior vice president – induced them and other senior managers involved in the selection process to single him out for adverse treatment.
 

Withdrawal.

The jurisdictional issue in this case is whether the application to the Tribunal filed on July 1, 1988 is admissible under Article II, paragraph 2 of the Tribunal’s Statute. In order to challenge the decision of January 21, 1988, the Applicant, in order to comply with Article II, para. 2 of the Statute, should have exhausted all internal remedies available within the Bank Group. Therefore, the Applicant should have appealed the Respondent’s decision to the Appeals Committee before filing his application with the Tribunal. Staff Rule 9.03, paragraph 5.01, required that the Applicant have filed such an appeal within thirty-days of his receipt of the Respondent’s decision of January 21, 1988. He did not do so.

The Respondent asserts that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide this case and that, in any event, the application lacks merit. The Applicant contests the adverse tax consequences of her pension payments until December 1986 (and possibly, as the Applicant claims, even later, in February 1987) as a violation of the Respondent’s duty to act reasonably in all the circumstances