4
*PF. not available.
Mr. Tomlinson asked whether thereis any
precedent for limiting the reduction for inefficiency
to 25% in a case where, owing to the shortness of
his service, the officer is qualified for a gratuity
only. No precedent can be traced but it is, I think,
relevant that, following the Treasury practice recorded in 60243/29, we now aim at limiting to 20%
the reduction from the gratuity of an officer retired after short service on grounds of ill health cau sed, or partially caused, by intemperance.
One case in point is that of Mr.MacLardie (file 91718/31/32) who was invalided from the
Service after interdiction from duty in proceedings
under Colonial Regulations. His gratuity was
reduced by 10%.
(file 21845 W. A.) whose retirement was due to
retrenchment, but in who se case the Governor of
Sierra Leone wished to reduce the gratuity by 25%
because of a suspicion of intemperance.
Another is that of Mr. Bennett
reduction approved was 5%.
The
Mr. MacLardie was 40 and Mr. Bennett was
49 at the time of retirement, but it does not appear that in either case the man's age was taken into
account in reaching a decision. Mr. MacLardie had
4 years' service and Mr. Bennett had 7 as against
6 years in the present case. But I doubt whether
the fact that an officer has only short service
should influence the question of the reduction to be made for inefficiency. That fact is fully taken
77 into account in the award to him of a gratuity
instead of pension, and to use it as an argument in favour of a different scale of reduction in gratuity
cases seems unfair to the officer of short service.
1.14.32
P.T.O.