Enclosure No. 2 to Despatch No. 19 of
18th January, 1903
COP T.
Hon. Col. Secy.;
6.0
0718
n 思
Pre 17 FEB 21
74
I concur in the view of the Hon. D. R.
It seems clear to me that if Mr. Gibbs had remained in the service he would have received back pay from 1st January, 1900, at the rate of $3,000.
There was some misunderstanding while he was in the service as to whether he ought to be paid at the rate of $2,400 or, having regard to his previous 9 years' service, ought to be put on the $3,000 basis from January 1st. The same misunderstanding arose as to other officers. Finally, it was decided that officers of several years' previous service were to have that service counted in estimating increments for service.
Before this decision was arrived at, Mr. Gibbs left the service on 31st March. In my opinion, the fact that he had left is no equitable reason for depriving him of the increment during the time from 1st January to 31st March. The difference amounts to $150 for the 3 months. Mr. Gibbs, I hear on all sides, was a painstaking and very efficient officer, and I think it would be a just as well as a graceful act to let him have that back pay rather than to try to take such a purely technical objection that the officer's application was made after he left the service.
While he was in the service, the question was not settled, and he was not in a position to make a formal application in the face of a temporary local ruling against him.
(31.) 7.. Weigh Goodman.
1
12.1.02.
Enclosure No. 2 to Despatch No. 19 of
18th. January,
COP T.
Hon. Col. Secy.;
1903.
6.0
0718
n 思
Pre 17 FEB 21
74
I concur in the view at the Hon. D. R.. ..
It seems clear to me that if Yr. Gibbs had remained in the service he would have received back pay from 1st, January, 1900, at the rate of $3,000.
There was some aisunderstanding while
he was in the service as to whether he ought to be paid at the rate of $2,400 or having regard to his previous 9 years service ought to be put on the $3,000 basis from January 1st. The same aisunlarstanding arose as to other officers. Finally it was lecidal that officers of several years previous service were to have that Service counted in estimating increments for service.
Before this decision was arrived at.. Mr. Gibbs left the service on 31st. March. In my opinion, tha fact that he had left, is no equitable reason for depriving him of the increment during the time from 1st. January to 31st. Varch. The difference amounts to $150 for the 3 months. Mr. Gibbs, I hear on all sides, was a painstaking and very efficient officer, and I think it would be a just as well as graceful act to let him have that back pay rather than to try to take such a purely technical objection that the officer's application was sale after he left the servica.
Thile he was in the service the question was not settled and he was not in a position to make focial application in the face of a temporary local ruling against him.
(31.) 7.. Weigh Goodman.
1
12.1.02.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.