B-162312, SEPTEMBER 12, 1967, 47 COMP. GEN. 147

B-162312, SEPTEMBER 12, 1967, 47 COMP. GEN. 147

COMPENSATION - HOLIDAYS - SEPARATION PRIOR TO A HOLIDAY THE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR A HOLIDAY ON WHICH NO SERVICES ARE PERFORMED PREDICATED ON THE EMPLOYEE HAVING BEEN IN A PAY STATUS AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE HOLIDAY, WHEN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP VALIDLY HAS BEEN TERMINATED BY REASON OF RESIGNATION OR RETIREMENT PRIOR TO A HOLIDAY, A FORMER EMPLOYEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO PAY FOR THE HOLIDAY, NOR IS AN EMPLOYEE SEPARATED AND ENTITLED TO A LUMP-SUM PAYMENT UNDER 5 U.S.C. 5551, IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE PAY HE WOULD RECEIVE HAD HE REMAINED IN THE SERVICE UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE LEAVE PAYMENT, WHOSE PERIOD OF PROJECTED ANNUAL TERMINAL LEAVE FOR THE LUMP-SUM PAYMENT EXTENDED THROUGH THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON JULY 3, 1967, ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR THE JULY 4 HOLIDAY.

TO CHARLES H. UPDEGROVE, POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, SEPTEMBER 12, 1967:

YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 8, 1967, FILE REFERENCE 9140: ERC: KF, WHICH WAS TRANSMITTED HERE BY THE ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL, BUREAU OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION ON AUGUST 16, 1967, REQUESTS OUR DECISION CONCERNING THE PROPRIETY OF CERTIFYING FOR PAYMENT A VOUCHER TRANSMITTED THEREWITH IN FAVOR OF MR. C. A. PERKINS, A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, COVERING PAY FOR THE HOLIDAY, JULY 4, 1967.

MR. PERKINS WAS SEPARATED FROM THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT ON MAY 20, 1967, AND THE PERIOD OF HIS PROJECTED ANNUAL TERMINAL LEAVE FOR LUMP SUM PAYMENT PURPOSES EXTENDED EXACTLY THROUGH THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON JULY 3, 1967, THE WORKDAY IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE JULY 4 HOLIDAY.

YOUR LETTER ALSO POINTS OUT THAT FROM TIME TO TIME AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS IN A PAY STATUS RESIGNS, RETIRES, OR IS SEPARATED AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE DAY BEFORE A LEGAL HOLIDAY WITH NO ANNUAL LEAVE TO HIS CREDIT. YOU REQUEST ADVICE WHETHER IN SUCH A CASE THE EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO PAY FOR THE HOLIDAY AND IF SO WHETHER THE FORM 50 SHOULD SHOW THE SEPARATION AS OCCURRING ON THE HOLIDAY OR THE DAY PRECEDING THE HOLIDAY.

THE DECISION CITED IN YOUR LETTER (DECEMBER 29, 1965, B-158012, 45 COMP. GEN. 291) AS WELL AS THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF NOVEMBER 4, 1966, B- 158012, 46 COMP. GEN. 383, INVOLVED EMPLOYEES WHOSE ACTUAL SEPARATIONS FROM THE ROLLS OF THE EMPLOYING AGENCY WOULD NOT OCCUR UNTIL AFTER THE HOLIDAY. OUR DECISIONS HELD IN EFFECT THAT ANY SUCH EMPLOYEE WHO IS IN A PAY STATUS AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE HOLIDAY HAS A VESTED RIGHT TO COMPENSATION FOR SUCH HOLIDAY AT WHICH TIME HE IS STILL ON THE ROLLS BUT PERFORMS NO DUTY.

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PAYMENT FOR HOLIDAYS ON WHICH NO WORK IS PERFORMED IS A BENEFIT THAT IS APPLICABLE EXCLUSIVELY TO EMPLOYEES AS DISTINGUISHED FROM FORMER EMPLOYEES. WHEN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP VALIDLY HAS BEEN TERMINATED BY REASON OF RESIGNATION OR OTHERWISE PRIOR TO THE OCCURRENCE OF THE HOLIDAY, THE FORMER EMPLOYEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO PAY FOR SUCH HOLIDAY. THE SECOND QUESTION UPON WHICH OUR DECISION IS REQUESTED IS ANSWERED ACCORDINGLY.

IN MR. PERKINS' CASE, THE PROJECTED PERIOD COVERED BY THE LUMP-SUM LEAVE PAYMENT ENDED AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON JULY 3, THE DAY PRECEDING THE HOLIDAY. UNDER THE CONTROLLING STATUTORY PROVISION (5 U.S.C. 5551) THE LUMP-SUM PAYMENT TO WHICH MR. PERKINS IS ENTITLED IS AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE PAY HE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED HAD HE REMAINED IN THE SERVICE UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE LEAVE PAYMENT. THUS, HAD MR. PERKINS NOT BEEN SEPARATED FROM THE SERVICE UNTIL THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON JULY 3 HE WOULD HAVE HAD THE SAME STATUS AS THE INDIVIDUALS CONSIDERED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH AND, FOR THE REASONS INDICATED ABOVE, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO PAY FOR THE HOLIDAY (JULY 4, 1967).

THE VOUCHER WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.