B-104080, FEB 1, 1956

B-104080, FEB 1, 1956

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

PHILIP YOUNG:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 22, 1955, ADVISING US THAT SECTIONS 25.401 THROUGH 25.408 OF THE PAY REGULATIONS, THE LEGALITY OF WHICH WAS QUESTIONED IN OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 31, 1955, B 104080 (35 COMP. GEN. 291), HAVE BEEN REVOKED, AND ASKING CERTAIN QUESTIONS REGARDING THE REISSUANCE OF SUBSECTIONS 25.103(E) AND (F) WHICH WERE ADMINISTRATIVELY REVOKED WHEN THE REFERRED-TO INVALID REGULATIONS WERE ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION ON JULY 23, 1955.

YOU SAY THAT SUBSECTIONS 25.103(E) AND (F) WERE NOT SIMULTANEOUSLY REVIVED UPON REVOCATION OF SECTIONS 25.401 THROUGH 25.408 BECAUSE OF THE NECESSITY FOR PROMPTNESS OF REVOCATION OF THOSE ACTIONS AND THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY TO REVIVE THE SUBSECTIONS RETROACTIVELY MIGHT REQUIRE SOME STUDY.

YOU ASK WHETHER THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO REISSUE THE FORMER SUBSECTIONS. ALSO, YOU ASK WHETHER THEY MAY BE RETROACTIVELY EFFECTIVE TO THE DATE THEY WERE REVOKED OR WHETHER THERE IS ANY OBJECTION TO THE CURRENT APPLICATION OF THE REVIVED SUBSECTIONS TO EMPLOYEES WHO ARE COVERED THEREBY BETWEEN JULY 23, 1955, AND THE DATE OF REISSUANCE.

SINCE SUBSECTIONS 25.103(E) AND (F) ORIGINALLY WERE CONSIDERED PROPER TO MEET THE NECESSITY EXISTING THEREFOR, AND SINCE THE REISSUANCE THEREOF WOULD NOT APPEAR TO BE AN AMENDMENT INCREASING OR DECREASING RIGHTS OR BENEFITS BUT INSTEAD MERELY WOULD REESTABLISH THE SAME RIGHTS OR BENEFITS PREVIOUSLY ACCORDED, WHICH REASONABLY COULD BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN REVOKED IN ERROR, NO REASON IS APPARENT WHY THEY MAY NOT BE REISSUED AND THE PROVISIONS THEREOF APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO THE DATE ADMINISTRATIVELY REVOKED, NAMELY, JULY 23, 1955. CF. 32 COMP. GEN. 315; 32 COMP. GEN. 527, AND CASES CITED THEREIN.