SAVINGRAM
To the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
10
From the Governor, Hong Kong.
Date
No.
4. The question has now arisen whether these officers should be eligible for retiring benefits based upon their whole period of service, in the same way as other officers occupying posts on the non-pensionable establishment. As, before 1st April, 1948, they were payable from an allowance to the Governor and not from individual provision for personal emoluments under Head 1/1, I am advised that their service prior to that date cannot properly be taken into account for pension purposes.
It is my opinion that this exclusion from pensionability for the whole period of service of the Government House servants concerned, who were employed before the 1st of April, 1948, is unjust, as some of them have served succeeding Governors for many years and prior to 1st April,
1948, were, in fact,
regarded as servants of the Government paid out of an open vote. I can see no good reason why these particular officers should now be disqualified from receiving annual allowances and/or gratuities in respect of their whole service.
5.
I have referred this question to Executive Council for advice and Council has expressed agreement with the views stated above. It has advised, and I have concurred with its advice and have directed accordingly, that a direction should be made under Section 3(3) of the Pensions Ordinance No.50 of 1949, that, subject to your approval, Legislative Council should be asked to pass a Resolution signifying approval of the Government House Staff (Allowance) Regulations 1950 attached as Enclosure 1. The effect of these Regulations would be to place the ten officers named in Regulation 2 in the same position for purposes of eligibility for retiring benefits as other Government officers on the non-pensionable establishment.
6. You will observe that Regulation 2 of the draft Regulations mentions the date 1st April, 1949, and not the date 1st April, 1948, when these officers were first brought on to the non-pensionable establishment. The purpose of this is merely precautionary, with a view to putting beyond all possible doubt, should queries arise at a future date, the eligibility of House Boy Cheung Kwun for full retiring benefits under Part V of the Schedule to the Pensions Ordinance No.50 of 1949. This House Boy was appointed on 1st March, 1949, i.e., during the period when the staff in question were shown as paid out of a temporary staff block vote under the item "Household Staff" and before their individual posts were incorporated in the non-pensionable establishment proper.
7。 The case of House Boy Tsang Lin, who was first appointed in 1925 and was invalided with effect from 3rd April, 1949, cannot be dealt with under the attached draft Regulations without giving him the exceptional advantage of being the only non-pensionable officer in this Government service who retired before Part V of the Schedule to the Pensions Ordinance No.50 of 1949 came into force on 8th December, 1949, and would enjoy retiring benefits calculated under Part V of the Schedule. This, of course, was not intended. On the other hand, although it is considered that his retiring benefits should be calculated in accordance with Pensions Regulation C made under the Pensions Ordinance No.21 of 1932, the only way in which this Regulation could be made to apply to him now, since it no longer has any effect except in so far as officers subject thereto retired prior to the enactment of the 1949 Ordinance (and Tsang Lin was not subject to Regulation C), would be by means of an amending Ordinance. This is, however, the only case of its kind and
after
Page 10Page 11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.