B-159277, JUL. 27, 1966
Highlights
YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION IS AS FOLLOWS: "ARE WE CORRECT IN OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO REGARD MR. HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLACED ON THE MINT ROLLS AS OF FEBRUARY 21. WHILE THE GRANTING OF SICK LEAVE IS A MATTER PRIMARILY WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CONCERNED. UNLESS THERE IS SOME SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR QUESTIONING THE FACT OF MR.
B-159277, JUL. 27, 1966
TO DIRECTOR OF THE MINT:
WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 18, 1966, REQUESTING AMPLIFICATION OF OUR DECISION OF JUNE 7, 1966, B-159277, TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PHILADELPHIA MINT. YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION IS AS FOLLOWS:
"ARE WE CORRECT IN OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO REGARD MR. BAILEY ON OUR ROLLS AS OF FEBRUARY 21, 1966, AND THAT HE MUST BE GRANTED ANY SICK LEAVE BEGINNING ON FEBRUARY 21, 1966?
OUR DECISION OF JUNE 7 HELD, IN EFFECT, THAT MR. STEWART V. BAILEY ACCEPTED THE TENDERED POSITION WITH THE PHILADELPHIA MINT ON FEBRUARY 21, 1966, PRIOR TO THE HEART ATTACK HE SUFFERED ON THAT DAY AND, THEREFORE, HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLACED ON THE MINT ROLLS AS OF FEBRUARY 21.
WHILE THE GRANTING OF SICK LEAVE IS A MATTER PRIMARILY WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CONCERNED, UNLESS THERE IS SOME SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR QUESTIONING THE FACT OF MR. BAILEY'S ILLNESS WE SEE NO REASONABLE BASIS FOR REFUSING TO GRANT HIM THE SICK LEAVE TO HIS CREDIT ON THE DATE OF HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE APPOINTMENT (FEBRUARY 21, 1966). COURSE AS INDICATED IN OUR PRIOR DECISION MR. BAILEY WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ANY COMPENSATION COVERING THE LEAVE PERIOD UNLESS HE TAKES OR HAS TAKEN THE OATH OF OFFICE.