B-133838, NOV. 6, 1957

B-133838: Nov 6, 1957

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

SHOULD BE PROCESSED WHEN BOTH ARE EFFECTIVE THE SAME DAY. THAT CONCLUSION WAS BASED ON THE THOUGHT THAT WHERE AN EMPLOYEE BECOMES SIMULTANEOUSLY ENTITLED TO TWO BENEFITS THEY SHOULD BE SO PROCESSED AS TO GIVE HIM THE MAXIMUM BENEFIT WHICH MIGHT BE DERIVED THEREFROM. THERE WAS NO INTENTION OF ESTABLISHING THAT ORDER OF PROCEDURE AS MANDATORY WHEN IT WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF DEPRIVING THE EMPLOYEE OF AN EARNED BENEFIT.'. IS VIEWED AS AN APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIOR DECISIONS TO THE NOVEL SITUATION RESULTING FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT UNDER STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF A NEW MINIMUM SALARY FOR THE PARTICULAR GRADE AND OCCUPATION.

B-133838, NOV. 6, 1957

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR:

ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1957, YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT SECRETARY MADE INQUIRY CONCERNING THE RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY OF OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1956, B-128814, 36 COMP. GEN. 217, REGARDING THE ORDER IN WHICH TWO SALARY CHANGES, A PERIODIC STEP INCREASE AND A NEW HIGHER MINIMUM FOR THE GRADE, ESTABLISHED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION UNDER AUTHORITY OF SECTION 803 OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1949, AS AMENDED, 5 U.S.C. 1133, SHOULD BE PROCESSED WHEN BOTH ARE EFFECTIVE THE SAME DAY.

OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1956, SPECIFICALLY DEALT WITH THE SITUATION OF AN EMPLOYEE WHOSE PERIODIC STEP INCREASE WOULD ADVANCE HIS SALARY TO THE NEW MINIMUM RATE OF THE GRADE, BOTH BEING EFFECTIVE ON THE SAME DATE. WE HELD THAT ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION MAY BE TAKEN TO FIRST INCREASE THE EMPLOYEE'S SALARY TO THE NEW MINIMUM OF THE GRADE AND IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER PROCESS THE WITHIN GRADE INCREASE.

IN REACHING THAT CONCLUSION WE SAID:

"WHILE THE PUBLISHED CASES REFERRED TO (INVOLVING A PERIODIC INCREASE AND A PROMOTION, REALLOCATION, OR DEMOTION) HELD THAT THE PERIODIC INCREASE SHOULD BE PROCESSED FIRST, THAT CONCLUSION WAS BASED ON THE THOUGHT THAT WHERE AN EMPLOYEE BECOMES SIMULTANEOUSLY ENTITLED TO TWO BENEFITS THEY SHOULD BE SO PROCESSED AS TO GIVE HIM THE MAXIMUM BENEFIT WHICH MIGHT BE DERIVED THEREFROM. THERE WAS NO INTENTION OF ESTABLISHING THAT ORDER OF PROCEDURE AS MANDATORY WHEN IT WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF DEPRIVING THE EMPLOYEE OF AN EARNED BENEFIT.'

AS THE HOLDING OF OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1956, IS VIEWED AS AN APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIOR DECISIONS TO THE NOVEL SITUATION RESULTING FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT UNDER STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF A NEW MINIMUM SALARY FOR THE PARTICULAR GRADE AND OCCUPATION, WE SEE NO OBJECTION, IN SITUATIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE CONSIDERED HERE AND IN OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1956, TO RETROACTIVE CORRECTION OF PRIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS WHICH HAD THE EFFECT OF DEPRIVING THE EMPLOYEE OF AN EARNED PERIODIC INCREASE.