differ. It
Als has been
argued out on various occasions
in this Office
A., H. a.)
* I don't see
why. A.H
арн
in the case of an officer leaving without
pension;
but nothing whatever is said about
an officer leaving with a pension, although
the old clause, which is repealed, did make
some provision for this. The new clause
therefore requires amendment at least on this
point. It removes anomalies as regardsoption
to contribute as between a bachelor and a
widower without children, which seems all right;
but the granting of such wide privileges as
regards option hardly seems desirable. Under
the se proposals an officer dismissed for mis-
conduct after a year's service could, if he
liked, continue to secure the advantages of
what is, in effect, a State subsidised system
of insurance, which seems very undesirable.
The Nigerian Ordinance provides for complete
forfeiture of all rights in the case of
dismissal, burthis seems to me to go too far in
the other direction. I should think it would
be enough to preserve existing rights but not
allow any option to continue contribution.
This option might also be restricted to officers
who have served a certain minimum period, (See
Section 27 of the Nigeria Ordinance (4)
It is
proposed (Section 12), to allow the widowo child
of an officer whose marriage was contracted
after he ceased to contribute under the pro-
visions of Section 8 of the principal Ordinance,
(that is after completing his period of con-
tribution), to benefit under the Scheme. As
is stated in para. 20 of Objects and Reasons,
the present provision seems unfair; but
unfortunately it is one of the asumptions upon
which