191
Mr Meade
This is not a very satisfactory Case.
The Medical evidence of infirmity was not very strong at first; Medical leave only since the date of his retirement; and it was given by one of that Medical Certificate has been kept on, his services having ceased when required.
1879 was stated in hind that work of a less trying nature than before had been argued for, but he requests to retire.
It has been neither "increased nor reduced within the last 3 years, and is said to have been $1200, with allowances, from 1 Jan. 1879. This makes a material difference in the pension, which is computed at $408.88 in lieu of $346 per annum.
It seems that the figures should explain the discrepancy in the Statements of the rate of pay.
The calculation of his average salary is not fractionally different from 28 Oct. 1880.
The effect of assenting to this annulment will be to give him 2 years more pension purposes than had been previously sanctioned.
Another noticeable point is, that whereas in the previous Paper of Particulars and its Annexures, in June 1879, the rate of pay was given $960 per annum; and Quarters, and it was distinctly stated that it had been correct, but the variation is so small to require notice. It is, however, not quite clear, under Clause 14 of the Hongkong Pension Rules, that the Salary should have been taken on the average of 3 years instead of at its final amount.
The foregoing attention might be directed to this point, in order that, if the salary was not revised...
Page 191
(Three lines at the top and bottom of the page are kept as is, indicating page metadata)
has been re-written to:191
Mr Meade
This is not a very satisfactory Case.
The Medical evidence of infirmity was not very strong at first; Medical leave only since the date of his retirement; and it was given by one of that Medical Certificate has been kept on, his services having ceased when required.
1879 was stated in hind that work of a less trying nature than before had been argued for, but he requests to retire.
It has been neither "increased nor reduced within the last 3 years, and is said to have been $1200, with allowances, from 1 Jan. 1879. This makes a material difference in the pension, which is computed at $408.88 in lieu of $346 per annum.
It seems that the figures should explain the discrepancy in the Statements of the rate of pay.
The calculation of his average salary is not fractionally different from 28 Oct. 1880.
The effect of assenting to this annulment will be to give him 2 years more pension purposes than had been previously sanctioned.
Another noticeable point is, that whereas in the previous Paper of Particulars and its Annexures, in June 1879, the rate of pay was given $960 per annum; and Quarters, and it was distinctly stated that it had been correct, but the variation is so small to require notice. It is, however, not quite clear, under Clause 14 of the Hongkong Pension Rules, that the Salary should have been taken on the average of 3 years instead of at its final amount.
The foregoing attention might be directed to this point, in order that, if the salary was not revised...
has been re-written to the following HTML format.191
Mr Meade
This is not a very satisfactory Case.
The Medical evidence of infirmity was not very strong at first; Medical leave only since the date of his retirement; and it was given by one of that Medical Certificate has been kept on, his services having ceased when required.
1879 was stated in hind that work of a less trying nature than before had been argued for, but he requests to retire.
It has been neither "increased nor reduced within the last 3 years, and is said to have been $1200, with allowances, from 1 Jan. 1879. This makes a material difference in the pension, which is computed at $408.88 in lieu of $346 per annum.
It seems that the figures should explain the discrepancy in the Statements of the rate of pay.
The calculation of his average salary is not fractionally different from 28 Oct. 1880.
The effect of assenting to this annulment will be to give him 2 years more pension purposes than had been previously sanctioned.
Another noticeable point is, that whereas in the previous Paper of Particulars and its Annexures, in June 1879, the rate of pay was given $960 per annum; and Quarters, and it was distinctly stated that it had been correct, but the variation is so small to require notice. It is, however, not quite clear, under Clause 14 of the Hongkong Pension Rules, that the Salary should have been taken on the average of 3 years instead of at its final amount.
The foregoing attention might be directed to this point, in order that, if the salary was not revised...