Pule Servants’ Appeal Rights

Northern Advocate, 18 July 1949, Page 5

Pule Servants’ Appeal Rights

WELLINGTON, Mon. iP.A.). A ruling that an officer of the Public Service had the right of appeal against his or her grading and, indirectly, an appeal in respect of salary payable, was given by Mr Justice Grcsson in a judgment today. His Honor found that a public servant was not, however, entitled to appeal against re-grading of all other officers of the Public Service. The judgment arose from an originating summons in which Raymond' Clarence Bartlett, of Auckland, sought an order to determine whether plamtiif could appeal against the re-grad-ing of all officers of the Public Cervice. The second question was to what extent and in respect of what officers was plaintill’s right of appeal limited. Defendants were George Thomas Eolt, ‘Public Service Commissioner, and others. SALARY* AND GRADING Salary in the Public Service was dependent on grading, said His Honor, and the last re-grading was set out in the New Zealand Gazette on October 2, 1946. Rights of appeal were given public servants in respect to salary and appointment. and it had been contended that plaintill’ had the right of appeal not only against his own grading, but also against the grading of other officers of* the clerical division to which lie belonged. On this point. His Honor supported the view of the defendants that to construe the Act in this manner would give rise to a ‘‘fantastic and absurd position” when a member of a division of the Public Service would have the right of appeal against grading and salaries of any of the many thousands of others. TWO (lONSTRUCTIONS "If if were a case that the language of the section 'of the Act) was demand unequivocal, capable only of one construction,” said His Honor, "that one construction would have to be put upon it. but I do not think that is so here. “The words are capable of two constructions, one strained and amounting almost to absurdity, the other reasonable and consistent with the rights of appeal given in subsequent subsections.in each-of which, beyond all question, the right of appeal is limited to the action of Inc Commission in respect of a particular officer.”