CO129-448 - Governor Sir May - 1918 [4-6] — Page 255

?

(2)

254

be urged that it was not intended to apply the new scheme

A

to leave of abgenoe, a specific rule should have been made to that effect.

The rules are themselves quite clear; an officer has to be the sole occupier of a house and that is practically the only

qualification required.

prstiously

Now an officer on leave who has taken a house on lease for a

A

reasonable period and who is unable to let it for the full period of his leave is in the position of occupier' for the period the house is unlet: he has to pay the rent to the landlord on the one hand and Rates, War Tax and Water Aoct. to Government on the other. It would there fore seem illogi- oal for Government to hold that a man is an oooupier for the purpose of paying taxes and not one when the question of receiving the allowance is raised.

There is nothing unreasonable in an officer having a leage for a limited period and it is not quite reasonable to expect him to be able to let his house exactly for the period of hig absence: while the idea of letting him be responsible for his Rent, Taxes, &o., out of his salary alone, during a period of actual vacancy would seem to be in conflict with the general principles which led to the scheme being initiated viz; that his salary on the present scale is inadequate to his position. The above arguments apply in great measure against the additional rule now proposed by Government viz: that an officer may be allowed to draw the allowance up to one half and that only in special circumstances, Zuch case to be decided on its merits on application to the Governor.

This rule seems to be objectionable on the grounds that en Officer's Emoluments (for whatever the allowance may be, it is an addition to Emoluments) are dependent, first, on an application being made and secondly, on the decision of the Governor.