B-136332, JAN. 19, 1960

B-136332: Jan 19, 1960

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION BELIEVED TO BE DUE HER BECAUSE OF PERIODIC STEP INCREASES WHICH WERE NEVER CREDITED TO HER. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY IN HIS LETTER. IT APPEARS THAT THE LAW AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE ENTITLEMENT TO PERIODIC PROMOTIONS OF EMPLOYEES APPOINTED TO PERMANENT POSITIONS REQUIRING ONLY UNSCHEDULED INTERMITTENT OR IRREGULAR SERVICES AND PAID AT PER DIEM EQUIVALENTS OF THE PER ANNUM RATES OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT WERE. ANY PRIOR UNCERTAINTY CONCERNING THE INTENDED EFFECT OF THE PERTINENT STATUTES AND REGULATIONS WAS REMOVED ON AUGUST 3.

B-136332, JAN. 19, 1960

TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE:

ON OCTOBER 23, 1959, THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT SECRETARY WROTE US CONCERNING THE PRINCIPLE OF LAW APPLIED IN THE SETTLEMENT OF OUR OFFICE WHICH DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF MRS. NELLIE O. BABCOCK, AN AGRICULTURE EMPLOYEE, FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION BELIEVED TO BE DUE HER BECAUSE OF PERIODIC STEP INCREASES WHICH WERE NEVER CREDITED TO HER.

WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY IN HIS LETTER. IT APPEARS THAT THE LAW AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE ENTITLEMENT TO PERIODIC PROMOTIONS OF EMPLOYEES APPOINTED TO PERMANENT POSITIONS REQUIRING ONLY UNSCHEDULED INTERMITTENT OR IRREGULAR SERVICES AND PAID AT PER DIEM EQUIVALENTS OF THE PER ANNUM RATES OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT WERE, AT BEST, AMBIGUOUS AND THE SUBJECT OF VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS. HOWEVER, ANY PRIOR UNCERTAINTY CONCERNING THE INTENDED EFFECT OF THE PERTINENT STATUTES AND REGULATIONS WAS REMOVED ON AUGUST 3, 1956, BY THE CLARIFICATION OF SECTION 25.11 (E) OF THE CIVILIAN PAY REGULATIONS. IN LIGHT OF THAT CONFUSION AND UNCERTAINTY, THE BRIEF INTERVAL OF TIME ELAPSING BETWEEN OUR UNPUBLISHED DECISION OF DECEMBER 16, 1955, B-126078, AND THE DATE OF THE CLARIFYING REGULATION, AND THE REPRESENTATION MADE IN THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S LETTER, WE FEEL THAT THE REVIEW REFERRED TO IN THAT SENTENCE SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED. THEREFORE, THE EXISTING RATES OF THE EMPLOYEES CONCERNED NEED NOT BE DISTURBED.

MRS. BABCOCK'S CLAIM WHICH IS BEING REVIEWED ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S LETTER ..END :