The example cited in your letter covers the case of an employee who served at the maximum salary rate in grade P-1 ($2,600) for several years prior to July 1, 1945. As the result of a reallocation of his position to grade P-2 effective July 1, 1945, the employee was advanced to the minimum salary rate in that grade ($2,980 per annum). Since the maximum salary rate of grade P-1 as increased by the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945, effective July 1, 1945, also was $2,980 per annum, no increase in compensation resulted from the reallocation. Therefore, the said employee not having received an equivalent increase of compensation for more than 12 months next preceding the date his position was reallocated, and all other conditions of the statute governing within-grade salary advancements having been complied with, his salary was increased on July 1, 1945, to the second step within the salary range of grade P-2 ($3,090). You request a decision whether the within-grade promotion in that case properly was effective on July 1, 1945, or at the beginning of the next pay period, July 15, 1945. In decision of October 10, 1942 (22 Comp. Gen. 336), one of the decisions referred to in your letter, it was held that automatic promotions under the act of August 1, 1941 (55 Stat. 613), became effective at the beginning of the quarter following the quarter during which all the conditions specified by the statute became fixed and accrued. Applying that rule to the facts considered in said decision, an employee who had served at the maximum salary rate of his grade for more than 18 months and who became eligible for within-grade promotion on the first day of the current quarter by reason of his promotion to a new position at the minimum rate of the next higher grade, not having met the conditions of the act until after the beginning of the current quarter, within-grade promotion in his case was not effective until the beginning of the following quarter. In the instant case, however, there is not involved a promotion to a new position. On the contrary, the employee's advancement to a higher grade resulted automatically from an upward reallocation of his old position. Therefore, at the very beginning of July 1, 1945, two forces operated simultaneously upon his salary status, namely, the reallocation of his position on one hand, and the within-grade promotion provisions of the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945 on the other. Thus, assuming all other conditions of the statute such as efficiency rating, conduct, etc., were met, it appears that the employee properly was advanced to the second salary step of grade P-2 at the beginning of the pay period on July 1, 1945. Your submission is answered accordingly. (B-70313) TRANSPORTATION-HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS-EXTENT OF The specific provision in section 1 of the administrative expense statute of August 2, 1946, authorizing reimbursement for shipment of household effects on permanent change of station upon a commuted basis in lieu of payment of actual expenses, while in irreconcilable conflict with the act of March 3, 1875, providing, generally, for the allowance of actual expenses, only, in connection with such shipments, is to be regarded as controlling, so that an employee is entitled to be reimbursed for the costs of transportation on a commuted basis in accordance with the tables prescribed by Executive Order No. 9805 issued pursuant to said statute, even though reimbursement be in excess of the actual expenses incurred. Comptroller General Warren to C. P. Gladfelter, Railroad Retirement Board, November 17, 1947: Reference is made to your letter of October 10, 1947, as follows: There is submitted herewith for advance decision voucher of Ray R. McCurry covering claim for reimbursement of the costs of transportation of household goods from Garden City, Long Island, New York to Chicago, Illinois, in the amount of $356.26. There is also enclosed copy of Travel Order No. 927 issued to Mr. McCurry April 14, 1947. Under Schedule A of the regulations prescribed in Executive Order 9805, dated November 25, 1946, the amount payable for 4550 pounds-852 miles @ $7.83 per hundred weight is $356.26. Mr. McCurry contends that he should be allowed the maximum under Schedule A, $356.26, in view of Section 12 of the above mentioned order which provides that in lieu of the payment of actual expenses incurred in connection with the transportation of an employee's household effects within the continental United States, reimbursement shall be made to the employee on a commutated basis at the rates fixed by zones in Schedule A of the regulations. However, the total actual cost of the movement, $288.98 (transportation, freight unloading, plus Federal Tax, packing, unpacking, and cargo insurance), as substantiated by the Bill of Lading, is considerably less than the amount allowable under Schedule A. The act of June 16, 1874, 18 Stat. 72, provides "That only actual traveling expenses shall be allowed to any person holding employment or appointment under the United States, and all allowances for mileages and transportation in excess of the amount actually paid are hereby declared illegal; and no credit shall be allowed to any of the disbursing officers of the United States for payments or allowances in violation of this provision." In consideration of this act the regulations are not clear as to whether we can certify more than was actually expended, that is the maximum allowable under Schedule A, or should we certify only the actual expenditure which was less than the amount allowable under the said schedule. Your early decision will be greatly appreciated. By the above-referred-to travel order, the employee was directed to proceed from New York, New York, to Chicago, Illinois, to effect a permanent change of duty station, and the movement of his household goods was authorized; shipment of such effects was accomplished in May, 1947. In the act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 452, the statutory provision quoted by you was reenacted in the following language: * That hereafter only actual traveling expenses shall be allowed to any person holding employment or appointment under the United States, except marshals, district attorneys, and clerks of the courts of the United States and their deputies; and all allowances for mileage and transportation in excess of the amount actually paid, except as above excepted, are hereby declared illegal ; and no credit shall be allowed to any of the disbursing officers of the United States for payment or allowances in violation of this provision. At the present time, that provision still subsists in its reenacted form except to the extent that it has been modified by particular classes being withdrawn from its coverage by subsequent legislation as, for instance, in the case of per diem in lieu of subsistence by the Subsistence Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 688, 689, and mileage for use of privatelyowned automobile, by the act of February 14, 1931, 46 Stat. 1103. See 5 Comp. Gen. 358; 20 id. 512. The act of August 2, 1946, Public Law 600, 60 Stat. 806, 807, which authorizes, among other things, reimbursement to officers and employees for shipment of their household effects on permanent change of duty station upon a commuted basis in lieu of payment of actual expenses-and pursuant to which Executive Order No. 9805 was issued-contains no general repeal provision, and the act of 1875, supra, is not listed among the acts specifically repealed therein. However, section 1 of the act of August 2, 1946, clearly was intended to supersede existing legislation-exclusive of the exceptions mentioned in the second proviso clause of section 1 (a) of that act, 60 Stat. 806— covering payment of expenses of transportation of household effects of civilian officers and employees on transfer from one official station to another for permanent duty to the extent that such legislation is in irreconcilable conflict with the provisions of section 1 thereof, covering such shipments. Moreover, it is a well-established rule that where one statute deals clearly with a part of a general subject in a definite manner and is repugnant to the more general provision of the same or another law covering the same general subject, the specific statutory provision prevails. 91 C. Cls. 35 [Haskins and Sells v. United States]; id. 91 [Byron Brown Ralston v. United States]; 285 U. S. 204 [Ginsberg and Sons v. Popkin]; 155 F. 2d 307 [Detrich v. Howard]; 157 id. 105 [Iriarte v. United States]. Also, see 26 Comp. Gen. 488; id. 57. Hence, there appears required the conclusion that the commutation provision of Public Law 600 relating to the shipment of household effects of employees is to be given full force and effect, and reimbursement is to be allowed in accordance with the tables prescribed in Executive Order No. 9805. The voucher, which is returned herewith, may be certified for payment, if otherwise correct. (B-70850) TRAVELING EXPENSES-RETURN TO U. S. FROM OVERSEAS STATIONSSEPARATED AND TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEES Employees who were transferred from stations in the United States to points outside continental United States-whether before or after August 2, 1946, the effective date of section 7 of the administrative expense statute-and whose services no longer are required or which no longer may be utilized are entitled under said section 7.to be paid the expenses of travel upon return to the places of actual residence in the United States-repatriation in such cases being for the purposes of the Government; and should employees be transferred to positions in the United States the expenses of transfer would be for determining pursuant to section 1 of said statute. Comptroller General Warren to the Secretary of Commerce, November 17, 1947: There has been considered your letter of October 30, 1947, as follows: The Weather Bureau of this Department has transferred employees who are War Service appointees from their stations in the United States to points outside the United States. The travel expenses of these employees are therefore paid under Section 1 rather than Section 7 of Public Law 600. These employees are not required to sign agreements to remain at the posts outside the United States for a given length of time. It is expected that the Civil Service examination for observers will be given next month. Under Civil Service regulations, War Service appointees in the States will have to be replaced by qualified observers after a register has been set up. It is anticipated that the Civil Service Commission will withdraw authority to transfer non-status employees to positions in the United States. Your decision is accordingly requested as to whether or not the travel expenses of the employees from their stations outside the United States to their former residences in the United States may be paid by the Government since it will be necessary to terminate their services by reason of the fact that there will be no positions in the United States at the time to which they may be transferred by reason of the fact that they are War Service appointees. Will the answer be the same whether the reason for return is within or beyond their control? If your answer to the above is in the affirmative, will there be any distinction between employees transferred on or after August 2, 1946, and those transferred before that time. Section 7 of Public Law 600, approved August 2, 1946, 60 Stat. 808, provides: SEC. 7. Appropriations for the departments shall be available, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the President, for expenses of travel of new appointees, expenses of transportation of their immediate families and expenses of transportation of their household goods and personal effects from places of actual residence at time of appointment to places of employment outside continental United States, and for such expenses on return of employees from their posts of duty outside continental United States to the places of their actual residence at time of assignment to duty outside the United States: Provided, That such expenses shall not be allowed new appointees unless and until the person selected for appointment shall agree in writing to remain in the Government service for the twelve months following his appointment, unless separated for reasons beyond his control. In case of a violation of such agreement any moneys expended by the United States on account of such travel and transportation shall be considered as a debt due by the individual concerned to the United States. This section shall not apply to appropriations for the Foreign Service, State Department. [Italics supplied.] The provision in that section for the allowance of travel and transportation expenses for return of employees from their posts of duty outside the United States to the places of their actual residence at the time of assignment to duty outside the United States is not coupled with authority to pay the expenses of their outward journey; neither is it limited to new appointees. Cf. decision of November 14, 1946, B-61379, 26 Comp. Gen. 322, and decision of January 15, 1947, B– 62267, 26 Comp. Gen. 488, 496 (Question and Answer No. 10). It appears reasonable to conclude that employees transferred from a position in the United States to a position outside the United States whose services no longer are required outside the United States, and whose services no longer may be utilized, may be allowed their travel and transportation expenses under authority contained in the abovequoted section of the statute, if it should be determined that there is no position in the United States to which they may be transferred. However, should they be transferred to positions in the United States. the expenses of their transfer would be for determining under authority contained in section 1 of Public Law 600, 60 Stat. 806. In the application of the conclusion herein reached there should be no difference beween employees transferred to posts of duty outside the United States on or after August 2, 1946 (the effective date of section 7 of Public Law 600, supra), and those transferred before that date. As to all such employees, whether returned to the United States in accordance with authority contained in section 7 of the statute, supra, or transferred to the United States in accordance with section 1 of the statute, the travel to be performed primarily should be for the purposes of the Government, rather than for the purposes of the employee; but in that connection, repatriation of an employee whose services no longer are required, or which no longer may be utilized, properly may be considered as primarily for the purposes of the Government. Your questions are answered accordingly. (B-68343) RETIREMENT-RESERVE OFFICERS OF PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE While subsection (f) of section 211 of the Public Health Service Act of 1944 makes the Civil Service Retirement Act, as amended, applicable generally to commissioned officers of the Reserve Corps of the Public Health Service, the provisions of subsection (a) of said section properly may be considered as impliedly authorizing the retirement of such reserve officers for "disease or injury incurred in line of duty in time of war" under conditions applicable to officers of the Army of the United States, as was specifically provided for under prior repealed law (section 8 of the act of November 11, 1943). A former Public Health Service reserve officer who contracted a disease in line of duty prior to November 11, 1943, the date of the act (now repealed) which assimilated such reserve officers to the disability retirement benefits of officers of the Army of the United States, and who subsequent thereto, upon |