2025-UNAT-1526, BK
The UNAT noted that the impugned Orders denying the staff member鈥檚 requests for anonymity had been issued less than a month after the UNDT had granted his motion for anonymity in another case.
The UNAT found that the impugned Orders did not exist in isolation and the interaction of all these proceedings rendered the situation exceptional. The UNAT held that denying him anonymity for his two applications alone would defeat the purpose of anonymity and, in the unique circumstances of these proceedings, this inconsistency was prejudicial to the integrity of the internal justice system. The UNAT...