(1/4
tre applied to the holder of those,
ffices
twhich
GLE
of at
least 14 percent is now given
(2) "for all new appointments, and tie theme- (3) " for all future promotions to
any of the offices
nar
receivin
at least 14 percent increase
But those officers receiving
to increase
increase of less
Cortine
Than 14% were to be entitled to the
'
A
"4/1⁄2 rate frxchange
Su
long as
"they hold their present appointments
" in the same salaries":
Soween
Afric
themantan
If the above had been Embodied in the Notification, the matter would have made cleared as in Similar Notification in 23900/90.
There and
Straits
remains to decide
what is to be the rule in officers promoted from
case
e of
ffice,
to which less than 14% increase has been granted, to another office of the same kind:
Σ
·9.
in the present list,
W. Dixon has just been promoted from being Ass. Marine Surveyor at $24,00 to be marine furveyor at $3600 MW. Justin Clarke, from P. Juozgat $84.00
;
E
39232
2017084)
I appre
Japper
to be C.
verz
C. Justice at $12000 substantial promotion
437
but I am afraid that
Each case, but I am
it
may
be too late to
say
that these two officers only get
condition of
their promotion
2.
getting the lower rate of Exchange for leave salaries & pensions.
Ishould however like to make
a rise
it the rule for all future promotions carrying of salary of at least 14% ?
above,
A
? Reply & Mas affect, but point out that the present list should not include M. Northcote (Ass. Postmaster Gen.)
both of or W. Ackroz (P: Judge) whom received an increase of 14% in the offices lates held by them, theple & cannot therety lost the 4/2 privilege which the
over 14
Mem
the offices
cannot be restored Their promotion through
held by them
happen not to have been given the
14% increase;
also M. Arthur should be omitted as he was given.
a
rese
and Mr. McCallum who has