1 ng
2
ould justifiably claim that in continuing to serve as Governor until beyond DS retirement age he had been unfairly discriminated against with regard to his pensio position by his PCSP3 award whether aggregated or not being assessed on ~ lens fovi final salary than if he had returned to the DS and taken up a Grade I post before retirement.
ible
6. I hope therefore you can agree to the proposal that to cater for the exceptional ciroumstances that can arise in the service of Governors account should be taken of promotion in absontia in assessing the salary to be used in aloulating a PCSPS award under the GPS either by way of Section 3.14 or 3.21. in fact the point is not strictly a GPS problem since it will be the PCBP'S that will have to provide for this proposal, albeit as part of one of the options available under. the CP'S. I do not see any need therefore for any modification to the GPS on this score.
7. This brings me to the question of the outstanding draft GPS about which I wrote to you on 29 June answering, I thought, all the CSD queries on the Sohene. I should to grateful if you could now give me some idea when we are likely to get clearanca - of the draft from you. Although Governors are numerically a small group anone cur pensioners they are important and influential and is in becoming increasingly, enborrassingly, difficult to answer their queries in the absence of an agreed schene. If any fundamental doubts have arisen about any of the provisions of the draft Scheme shich require further consideration perhaps you would let me know so that we on dirpogo of them if possible without further delay.
twow
nd
illby.
海や
#
१
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.