In Wheattle See the second draft
45
The proposal to exclude officers who were on leave pending retirement on 1/1/47 from the revision of salaries is entirely contrary to the practice which has been followed in every other Colony, but since the Governor is so persistent, the proposal should be approved. I suggest, however, that we should point out as above and say that approval is given only on the understanding that if the decision results in cases of serious hardship or in any serious anomaly the question should be reconsidered.
The arguments put forward by the Governor are not very convincing. As regards (a) this also applies of course to any officer who proceed on leave on say the 2nd January, 1947. As regards (b) this may be true, but it seems to me that it could be used as an argument against making the revision retrospective at all.
The decision should be noted by Mr. Nicholls and in Pensions Branch.
Mon 157
-157407
Kue
18th August, 1948.
;
مل دل
231
X above is the least we can do. And, in view
of paray of 257, is also I'm sorry
say, the most.
I am
wrong headed in this.
Hugkay-
по
am Earl H. K. and
Too
26/8
Sel. na 925
Conf. Sanj M.885-(279) amit.
272 Treasury W/c 279
283. for.
tel 357 Sar, Staff
-7/8
28.8.48 -3 SEP 1948
= 4 SEP 1348
19-8-48.