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~ 