B-129128, OCT. 24, 1956
Highlights
GRAHAM: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 11. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOU WERE PROMOTED FROM THE POSITION OF LAW CLERK. THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED COMPENSATION AT THE INCREASED RATE PRESCRIBED FOR THE NEW ASSIGNMENT COMMENCING ON OCTOBER 9. WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTABLISHED RULE THAT THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES OF A HIGHER CLASSIFICATION THAN THAT TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEE IS OFFICIALLY ASSIGNED DOES NOT. THE PRINCIPLE IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES IN SALARY RATES MAY NOT BE MADE RETROACTIVELY EFFECTIVE IN THE ABSENCE OF A STATUTE SPECIFICALLY SO PROVIDING. THE FACT THAT A SALARY INCREASE OF THE TYPE HERE INVOLVED MAY HAVE BEEN DELAYED AS A RESULT OF ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT OR FOR OTHER REASONS IS NOT CONTROLLING IN THE MATTER EVEN THOUGH THE EMPLOYEE MAY HAVE PERFORMED THE DUTIES OF A POSITION OF A HIGHER GRADE DURING THE PERIOD OF DELAY.
B-129128, OCT. 24, 1956
TO MR. GEORGE B. GRAHAM:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 11, 1956, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF SETTLEMENT DATED AUGUST 3, 1956, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, FORT MASON, CALIFORNIA, DURING THE PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 30 THROUGH OCTOBER 8, 1955.
THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOU WERE PROMOTED FROM THE POSITION OF LAW CLERK, GS-5, $4,480 PER ANNUM, TO THE POSITION OF INVESTIGATOR GENERAL, GS-8, $5,780 PER ANNUM, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 9, 1955, AND THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED COMPENSATION AT THE INCREASED RATE PRESCRIBED FOR THE NEW ASSIGNMENT COMMENCING ON OCTOBER 9, 1955. THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR THE PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 30 THROUGH OCTOBER 8 1955, WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTABLISHED RULE THAT THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES OF A HIGHER CLASSIFICATION THAN THAT TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEE IS OFFICIALLY ASSIGNED DOES NOT, IN ITSELF, EFFECT A CHANGE IN CLASSIFICATION NOR DOES IT ENTITLE AN EMPLOYEE TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR THE DUTIES PERFORMED.
THE PRINCIPLE IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES IN SALARY RATES MAY NOT BE MADE RETROACTIVELY EFFECTIVE IN THE ABSENCE OF A STATUTE SPECIFICALLY SO PROVIDING. THE FACT THAT A SALARY INCREASE OF THE TYPE HERE INVOLVED MAY HAVE BEEN DELAYED AS A RESULT OF ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT OR FOR OTHER REASONS IS NOT CONTROLLING IN THE MATTER EVEN THOUGH THE EMPLOYEE MAY HAVE PERFORMED THE DUTIES OF A POSITION OF A HIGHER GRADE DURING THE PERIOD OF DELAY, SINCE IT UNIFORMLY HAS BEEN RULED THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF A SALARY CHANGE RESULTING FROM ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IS THE DATE THE ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER VESTED WITH THE PROPER AUTHORITY, OR A SUBSEQUENT DATE SPECIFICALLY FIXED BY HIM. SEE, IN THIS CONNECTION, 35 COMP. GEN. 153; 30 ID. 156; 27 ID. 63; 21 ID. 95; 10 ID. 514.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 3, 1956, IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT AND MUST BE SUSTAINED.