any period previons to that date be would apparently have a claim to 20° Jears but the Attery Pension Mimete
gives a claim to pension from date of app?
M. Johnson.
5.W.7.25750
کھے۔
will have hard resethan digree that W-Dave to 25 years pensionable service on 15 No-hext, & atte from 16027 that the medical certificate in tile accepted unders he wiches to
return alttal daté
Jam not quite clea about the mount of thin pensionable in stumments on
which hiptension thuld be based
17140 Su
nee sha that he Joe, wri wish to
return
The 14th clause of the Stel
Hughey pension minute said that the salary of the me permanent Office muthat have been revised during the last 3 years, onder tisice the pension was Bhaber computed Average of the last 3 years.
PL
#c
This feature in
comewhat unmeal but I do noththink it at
all necessarily méresmetle where a man referen
bery shorts after getting
".
2.
ace ar
a considerall Mercase
donkew
Have we definitis committed onore was th Stering the practice in the few minute; seve if we have
wet by any precedents orokémie... bound to five Capiscame the benefit of it-
also has Capt Dlane by had a bodpy allon #$1320
Difteen the excessive way when reduced
вия
M. Meade
Astom Roundé queries
386
1. We have in new draft densid Mines (on 4982/800) adopted the thant's practice which bases the pensin (not on the average and)!
officer
the final pay where an has not been promoted to another
Jann
sony
office.
t
Say
that im
par. 4 of desp. 72 (m 1123/90-1) I drafted
ar
Though
this was
then make
in the Existing minte", which is not the case. Strictly speaking Mideana is not entitled to the benefit of them new rule. The only precedent for ė. by parving thes giving him the benefit, that I kan discover, is the case
is the case of M. Brice who received
allowance in
Even
certain fees that he voluntaret. relinquished twas allowed to count. the amount in full for remain though he drew it less than three years. This was however hardly
all Jours
with M. Deane's.
a casc
I am inclined to think that he was Stable a reasonable claim to the benefit of the rule about to be made, on the ground that we Wt. 86 replied rule as 4 by 4982/88
X. In then drop?
to
approved that long ago as 1886 h, and that. we implied (in the erroneous par. above,
Page 390F