CO129-611-8 Police Department- gazetted officers 7-1-1949 - 11-2-1950 — Page 22

22

where this rule dres not

apply

Mr. King.

In your minute of the 10th June on 61640 C.R you say that you see no objection to applying the half service rule to officers transferred to Hong Kong from other Colonies.

I agree with this view so fur us officers promoted direct from non-gazetted ranks are concerned but, in the case in question, the officer (Mr. Clunie) was transferred as a gazetted officer from Palestine to Hong Kong and,on transfer, he was allowed incremen- tal credit in his new salary scale equivalent to that which he enjoyed in the Palestine scale. This seems to me the only possible arrangement to adopt us a general rule in cases of transfers within a Unified Service.

1

If all Police Officers who are transferred to Hong Kong from guzetted appointments in other Coloni, are to be allowed to enter the Hong Kong scaleat points corresponding to those which they had reached in their former scules, but ut points which will, in addition, credit then ut half rate for any earlier non-gazetted service, such officers will be placed in a specially privileged position in Hong Kong in comparison with others with similar records who are appointed elsewhere Moreover, as the Governor observes, the adoption of such an arrangement would lead to a request for salary readjustments on a similar basis by all present and future transferred Superintendents and Assistant Superintendents.

The difficulty in the case of Mr. Clunie, as with several other ricers transferred from Palestine to other territories, is that he had only a very short period of guzetted service (about one year) before transfer, but that this was preceded by a long period of non-gazetted service (about eight years, including service as a Constable). If, therefore, he had been promoted direct from non-gazetted rank in Palestine and the half service rule had been applied to him on the basis indicated in paragraph 3 of 13 on this file, he would have entered about 4 or possibly 5 points up the scale. He actually entered at the fourth point (i.e. one increment above the confined point in view of his one year's service as an Assistant Juperintendent of Police in Palestine). The slide, of course, fair that he should be treated rates my favourably than if he had not been promoted

before leaving Palestine: and I think, therefore, that it would be reasonable to give him another two increments. For the reasons given above, however, I agree with the Governor and mr. Radford that it would be better to make this adjustment,und any others which may be desirable in similar circumstances, on an ad hoc basis rather than in accordance with any formula.

(See paragraph 1 of 68 on 61640 C.R.)

I am not altogether clear as to what is implied in Mr. Clunie's complaint that he is placed in an "invidious position compared with Assistant Superintendents promoted from the Inspectorate in Hong Kong". Presumably the reference is to the officers whose details of service are given in the enclosure to 13 on this file. These officers, who must be much older than Mr. Clunie, have had between 18 and 25 years' service as Inspectors in Hong Kong before promotion to gazetted ran and, on the basis of the half salary rule, hicir must received a higher salaries than mr. Clunie. This seems to me quite a

reasonable