A-16698, FEBRUARY 19, 1927, 6 COMP. GEN. 542
Highlights
1927: I HAVE YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 27. WOULD HE HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO 60 DAYS' LEAVE OF ABSENCE BETWEEN AUGUST 6. IT IS REGRETTED THAT REFERENCE WAS NOT MADE IN MY LETTER OF DECEMBER 3. IN WHICH HE HELD THAT SINCE THE DISTRICT JUDGE'S TERM OF OFFICE IS FIXED BY LAW AT 4 YEARS. THESE FOUR YEARS ARE SERVICE YEARS. WHICH ARE SERVICE YEARS. THIS DECISION WAS NOT PUBLISHED. THE THREE COURT OFFICERS OF THE PANAMA CANAL ZONE ARE APPOINTED FOR "TERMS OF FOUR YEARS EACH" UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE SAME SECTION OF THE STATUTE THAT AUTHORIZES GRANTING THEM "60 DAYS' LEAVE OF ABSENCE EACH YEAR. WERE INTENDED TO OR DO APPLY TO THE FOUR SERVICE YEARS AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE. IT IS THE UNIFORM RULE THAT THE LEAVE YEAR IS THE CALENDAR YEAR UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THE STATUTE OR IN A REGULATION ISSUED PURSUANT TO STATUTE.
A-16698, FEBRUARY 19, 1927, 6 COMP. GEN. 542
LEAVE OF ABSENCE - COURT OFFICIALS OF THE PANAMA CANAL ZONE THE "60 DAYS' LEAVE OF ABSENCE EACH YEAR" GRANTED THE COURT OFFICERS OF THE PANAMA CANAL ZONE, BY THE ACT OF DECEMBER 29, 1926, 44 STAT. 924, SHOULD BE BASED ON THE CALENDAR YEAR AND NOT THE SERVICE YEAR UNLESS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED BY REGULATION. WHERE TWO OR MORE PERSONS OCCUPY THE SAME COURT OFFICE OF THE PANAMA CANAL ZONE DURING THE SAME CALENDAR YEAR, THE 60 DAYS' LEAVE OF ABSENCE AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT OF DECEMBER 29, 1926, 44 STAT. 924, SHOULD BE PRORATED BETWEEN THEM ON THE BASIS OF THE PORTION OF THE CALENDAR YEAR SERVED BY EACH.
COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL TO THE GOVERNOR OF THE PANAMA CANAL, FEBRUARY 19, 1927:
I HAVE YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 27, 1927, AS FOLLOWS:
1. IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR DECISION OF JANUARY 14, 1927, NO. A 16,698, REGARDING THE LEAVES OF ABSENCE OF COURT OFFICIALS OF THE CANAL ZONE, IN WHICH YOU HELD THAT SUCH LEAVES OF ABSENCE SHOULD BE BASED ON THE CALENDAR YEAR, THE QUESTION IMMEDIATELY ARISES AS TO WHAT LEAVE ALLOWANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED IN CASES WHERE THE TERM OF OFFICE BEGINS OR ENDS AT ANY TIME DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR OTHER THAN JANUARY 1ST.
2. FOR INSTANCE, THE PRESENT MARSHAL'S APPOINTMENT DATES FROM AUGUST 6, 1925. IF THE NEW LAW HAD BEEN IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME, WOULD HE HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO 60 DAYS' LEAVE OF ABSENCE BETWEEN AUGUST 6, 1925, AND THE END OF THAT CALENDAR YEAR? LIKEWISE, IF HIS TERM OF OFFICE SHOULD EXPIRE ON AUGUST 5TH, WOULD HE BE ENTITLED TO 60 DAYS' LEAVE OF ABSENCE BETWEEN JANUARY 1ST AND AUGUST 5TH OF THAT CALENDAR YEAR?
3. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S APPOINTMENT DATES FROM FEBRUARY 16, 1925, AND IF HIS TERM OF OFFICE SHOULD EXPIRE ON FEBRUARY 15TH OR SOME FUTURE YEAR, HOW MANY DAYS' LEAVE OF ABSENCE WOULD HE BE ENTITLED TO FROM JANUARY 1ST TO THE EXPIRATION OF HIS TERM OF OFFICE?
4. IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR DECISION OF JANUARY 14, 1927, IT IS REGRETTED THAT REFERENCE WAS NOT MADE IN MY LETTER OF DECEMBER 3, 1926, TO COMPTROLLER DOWNEY'S DECISION OF APRIL 6, 1915, IN WHICH HE HELD THAT SINCE THE DISTRICT JUDGE'S TERM OF OFFICE IS FIXED BY LAW AT 4 YEARS, THESE FOUR YEARS ARE SERVICE YEARS, AND THE PROVISION FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE, APPEARING IN THE SAME STATUTE, MUST BE CONSTRUED AS RELATING TO THE YEARS FIXED BY THE CONDITIONS OF THE JUDGE'S TENURE OF OFFICE, WHICH ARE SERVICE YEARS. THIS DECISION WAS NOT PUBLISHED, BUT I ATTACH A COPY FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE.
THE THREE COURT OFFICERS OF THE PANAMA CANAL ZONE ARE APPOINTED FOR "TERMS OF FOUR YEARS EACH" UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE SAME SECTION OF THE STATUTE THAT AUTHORIZES GRANTING THEM "60 DAYS' LEAVE OF ABSENCE EACH YEAR," VIZ: SUBSECTION (G) OF SECTION 8 OF THE PANAMA CANAL ACT, AS AMENDED BY SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF DECEMBER 29, 1926, 44 STAT. 924. SEE ALSO ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1912, 37 STAT. 565, AND ACT OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1922, 42 STAT. 1006. IT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW, HOWEVER, THAT THE WORDS "EACH YEAR," WHEN USED IN THE STATUTE TO MEASURE THE AMOUNT OF LEAVE GRANTED, WERE INTENDED TO OR DO APPLY TO THE FOUR SERVICE YEARS AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE. IT IS THE UNIFORM RULE THAT THE LEAVE YEAR IS THE CALENDAR YEAR UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THE STATUTE OR IN A REGULATION ISSUED PURSUANT TO STATUTE. THE FIXING BY STATUTE OF THE LENGTH OF SERVICE UNDER AN APPOINTMENT OF AN OFFICER, OR CLASS OF OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES, IS NOT PECULIAR TO THE THREE PANAMA CANAL COURT OFFICERS. OTHER STATUTES FIX THE LENGTH OF SERVICE UNDER APPOINTMENTS AUTHORIZED THEREIN, BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT IT IS NOT THE GENERAL PRACTICE TO GRANT LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO SUCH OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES ON THE BASIS OF THE SERVICE YEAR RATHER THAN THE CALENDAR YEAR.
ACCORDINGLY, DECISION OF JANUARY 14, 1927, 6 COMP. GEN. 470, HOLDING THAT THE LEAVE YEAR OF THE THREE COURT OFFICERS OF THE PANAMA CANAL IS THE CALENDAR YEAR MUST BE AND IS AFFIRMED. DECISION OF APRIL 6, 1915, TO WHICH YOU REFER, WILL NOT BE FOLLOWED HEREAFTER.
IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS OCCUPY THE SAME COURT OFFICE DURING THE SAME CALENDAR YEAR, THE 60 DAYS' LEAVE OF ABSENCE AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE SHOULD BE PRORATED BETWEEN THEM ACCORDING TO THE PORTION OF THE CALENDAR YEAR SERVED BY EACH. THIS WOULD APPEAR TO BE A MATTER PROPERLY TO BE PROVIDED FOR BY APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS UNDER THE PRESENT LAW, WHICH AUTHORIZES THE ALLOWANCE OF LEAVE WITH PAY TO THESE OFFICERS "UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE PRESIDENT MAY FROM TIME TO TIME PRESCRIBE.'