by reason of such absence, except as provided in section 3, nor shall such period of service be deducted from the time allowed for any leave of absence authorized by law. SEC. 2. Any employee specified in section 1 who may be called upon for jury service in any court of the United States shall not receive any compensation for such service. Inasmuch as the employee referred to in your letter held a temporary appointment on a "when actually employed" basis at the time he served as a juror, he is not entitled to the benefits provided for in section 1 of the above-quoted act. See 20 Comp. Gen. 145. It follows, therefore, that employees in that status likewise are not subject to the inhibition contained in section 2 of the said act. Accordingly, there is no legal objection to an otherwise proper grant of annual leave to temporary when-actually-employed personnel covering a period during which such employees received fees for jury service. See 7 Comp. Gen. 754. Your submission is answered accordingly. (B-66823) TRANSPORTATION-VESSELS-LOWEST FIRST-CLASS LIMITATION— ACCOMMODATIONS ON TROOP CARRIERS Passenger accommodations offered by agents of the Maritime Commission in dormitories and open troop areas on C4-type vessels (troop carriers) presently engaged in transoceanic passenger service, not being superior or even equal to inferior passenger accommodations of regularly scheduled commercial vessels in the same service, need not be regarded as firstclass within the meaning of the cost limitation of section 10 of the act of March 3, 1933, as amended, even though offered to the general public on that basis, so that military personnel may be furnished stateroom accommodations at the lowest rate therefor when required to travel on official business on such vessels. Assistant Comptroller General Yates to the Secretary of War, August 1, 1947: There has been considered your letter of June 2, 1947, as follows: It has been brought to my attention that many transoceanic commercial steamship companies are quoting two first-class rates, i. e., compartment and stateroom. The compartments in question accommodate from eight (8) to fifty (50) or more people and are usually of the type utilized for the emergency transportation of troops during the war. There is now before the War Department for consideration the question whether, under existing law, accommodations of the type described as compartments are in fact first-class accommodations and it is required that such accommodations be utilized for the transportation of military personnel entitled to first-class accommodations traveling on official business under competent orders other than in a travel with troops status. The Department feels that the lowest first-class referred to in the Act of 3 March 1933 (47 Stat. 1516) is intended to mean, in this case, the lowest stateroom accommodation. It is therefore requested that I be advised whether you would be required to object to the furnishing of the usual stateroom accommodations as the lowest first-class in the circumstances outlined above. In this connection, reference is made to the ruling announced in decision A-50504, dated 23 September 1933, wherein it is held "From the facts set forth it appears that the 'inside berthrooms' at $1.25 on the Norfolk and Washington Steamboat Companies Line are not in fact first-class rooms but are in ferior rooms. Accordingly, settlement will be made at the lowest rate for outside rooms. 99 Reference is also made to so much of the provisions of Circular A-7, Revised, dated 5 September 1946, issued by the Executive Office of the President, Bureau of the Budget, Washington 25, D. C., to the Heads of Executive Departments and Establishments, Subject: Promulgation and Amendments of Standardized Government Travel Regulations, as defines steamer accommodations "Staterooms: One lowest available first-class rate stateroom accommodation The provisions referred to in the act of March 3, 1933, are contained in section 10 of that act, 47 Stat. 1516. That section was amended by section 6 of the act of August 2, 1946, 60 Stat. 808, to read as follows: SEC. 10. Whenever by or under authority of law actual expenses for transportation may be allowed, such allowances shall not exceed the lowest first-class rate by the transportation facility used in such transportation unless it is certified, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the President, that lowest first-class accommodations are not available or that use of a compartment or such other accommodations as may be authorized or approved by the head of the agency concerned or such subordinates as he may designate, is required for purposes of security. In view of the restrictive provisions of the quoted statute, this office is without authority to allow credit in disbursing officers' accounts for any amount paid for transportation in excess of the lowest firstclass rate by the transportation facility used. Generally, the determination of whether particular passenger accommodations are firstclass or otherwise has been left to the steamship companies involved, and this office has, as a general practice, accepted their determinations in the matter, as reflected by their published tariffs, and allowed credit for the cost at the lowest published rate for accommodations described as first-class. The names of the commercial steamship companies referred to in your letter have not been furnished. However, it is assumed that the "compartment" accommodations described are those being offered to the public by various commercial steamship companies acting as agents for the United States Maritime Commission on vessels of that commission currently operating in transoceanic service. A schedule of sailings during July and August, 1947, of various vessels of that type, published by the United States Lines, New York, New York, under date of July 1, 1947, contains the following descriptive information: The steamers listed above are C4 type vessels which were built as troop carriers with a limited number of staterooms and the balance of passenger accommodations in dormitories and open troop areas. They are not regular passenger ships and are being operated on an emergency basis to assist in transporting the large number of travellers who cannot be accommodated otherwise. It is strongly emphasized that these vessels have very few facilities for the convenience and comfort of passengers. From such information it does not appear that the passenger accommodations offered in the dormitory and open troop areas on those vessels are in fact first-class accommodations, or that they are superior or even equal to the so-called inferior passenger accommodations of the regularly scheduled vessels of commercial lines in the same service. If such are the facts, it does not appear that the provisions of section 10 of the act of March 3, 1933, as amended, supra, require that such accommodations be considered as first-class within the meaning of that act, even though offered to the public on that basis. Accordingly, you are advised that this office will not be required to object to the furnishing to the military personnel described of stateroom accommodations at the lowest rate for such accommodations when required to travel on official business on vessels of the type herein discussed. (B-67806) MILEAGE-TRAVEL BY PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE-DEPEND ENTS USE OF MORE THAN ONE AUTOMOBILE Under the provisions of Executive Order No. 9805, issued pursuant to section 1 (a) of the act of August 2, 1946, relating to the payment of mileage for the travel of employees' dependents by privately owned automobile on change of station, mileage may be allowed for the use of one automobile, only, unless it be shown that transportation in the one was not feasible, even though the cost of transportation for the entire family by rail would exceed the aggregate amount of mileage for the use of more than one automobile. Comptroller General Warren to Guy W. Carmack, Department of Agriculture, August 1, 1947: Reference is made to your letter of July 3, 1947, as follows: In accordance with Section 3 of the Act approved December 29, 1941, 55 Statute, 876, there is submitted for your consideration reclaim voucher in the amount of $30.15, covering an amount suspended from Mr. William H. Tandy's claim for reimbursement for the period April 2, 1947 to April 4, 1947. Letter of Authorization No. 255 (Sol), dated February 17, 1947, copy of which is attached, was issued to cover Mr. William H. Tandy's travel and the transportation of his immediate family consisting of Mrs. Ruth W. Tandy, wife, William H. Tandy, Jr., son, age 8 years, and Charles A. Tandy, son, age 3 years, and the transportation of his household goods and personal effects in connection with his transfer of official station from Indianapolis, Indiana to St. Paul, Minnesota. This authorization includes the following with respect to mileage: "1. In lieu of travel by common carrier or Government-owned vehicle you are authorized to travel by privately owned automobile, for which you will be allowed: "* (b) 5 cents per mile in lieu of all other transportation costs; such mode of transportation has been administratively determined to be more economical and advantageous to the United States. "* If you travel by privately owned automobile Paragraph 1 (a) is applicable provided you or a member of your family travel alone but if two or more members of the family travel together then Paragraph 1 (b) is applicable." With the enactment of Public Law 600, approved August 2, 1946, and the issuance of Executive Order 9805, effective November 1, 1946, and General Regulation 88-Revised, Supplement No. 2, dated December 16, 1946, instructions were issued by the Office of the Solicitor in a memorandum, dated February 4, 1947, copy of which is attached, containing the following paragraph on page 2 regarding the use of privately owned automobile: "Use of Privately Owned Automobile, "The present regulations, as interpreted and administratively limited by this office, provide for reimbursement for the use of a privately owned automobile at the rate of five cents per mile in lieu of all other transportation costs when an employee and one or more members of his immediate family travel together on change of official station or when two or more members of his immediate family travel together when not accompanied by the employee." On the voucher submitted by Mr. Tandy claim is made for the use of two automobiles at five cents a mile for 603 miles each making a total for mileage of $60.30. The voucher contained the following comparative cost statement: Cost of one way railway fare Indianapolis to St. Paul (2%). Taxi fares (est.): Indianapolis, Home to Station_ St. Paul, Station to Home___ Grand total___ $49.30 8.48 On May 14, 1947 a memorandum was written to Mr. Tandy requesting information with respect to the use of the two cars to which he replied as follows: "Reference is made to your memorandum of May 14, 1947, concerning the voucher for $524.40 for reimbursement of expenses incident to my official travel and movement of household goods from Indianapolis, Indiana, to St. Paul, Minnesota. "In the second paragraph of your memorandum, you request information as to whether I was accompanied by members of my family in one of the cars. You are advised that one of the children accompanied me in one car and the other child accompanied Mrs. Tandy in the other car." Mileage for the use of one of the automobiles was suspended as per attached copy of audit difference statement, dated May 21, 1947, since a situation where the use of more than one privately owned automobile for transportation on change of official station was not contemplated. It will be appreciated if you will advise me whether the attached reclaim voucher may be certified for payment. The provisions of Executive Order 9805 effective November 1, 1946, in respect of allowance of transportation costs of dependents of employees transferred from one official station to another, issued pursuant to section 1 (a) of the act of August 2, 1946, Public 600, 60 Stat. 806, appears to contemplate that only one privately owned automobile be used in performing travel on a mileage basis under the act of February 14, 1931, as amended, when no reasonable grounds are furnished to show that transportation of the employee and his family in one automobile was not feasible. This is so regardless of the fact that the cost by railway transportation for the entire family is less than the cost at the specified mileage rate for two privately owned automobiles-the Government being entitled to the greatest saving possible when travel is performed upon a mileage basis, Any con clusion to the contrary would in effect permit the transportation of one of the two automobiles to the employee's new official station for his personal convenience at the expense of the Government which is not authorized. In that connection, see 5 U. S. C. 73c. In the instant case, the employee and his family traveled to the new official station on the same date, namely, April 2, 1947, and there is no indication that all members of the family could not have traveled in one of the two automobiles in which the travel was actually performed. Accordingly, the voucher which is returned herewith may not be certified for payment. (B-66951) COMPENSATION-WITHIN-GRADE ADVANCEMENTS; INITIAL SALARY RATES RESTORATION TO FORMER POSITION FOLLOWING REDUCTION An employee restored to a former grade following service in a lower grade, the resulting compensation increase being equal at least to the smallest salary increment in the lower grade, is to be regarded as having received an "equivalent increase in compensation" within the meaning of the withingrade salary-advancement provisions of section 402 of the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945 and the regulations issued in pursuance thereof, so that time served in the higher grade prior to service in the lower grade may not be credited toward within-grade advancement in the higher grade after restoration thereto. The initial salary rate of an employee may not, upon restoration to a former grade following transfer to a lower grade, be fixed to include a withingrade salary advancement which would have been due in such former grade on the date of transfer to the lower grade, where the rate thus fixed would exceed the highest formerly received. Comptroller General Warren to the Federal Security Administrator, August 4, 1947: There has been considered your letter of June 10, 1947, as follows: A question has arisen concerning establishment of salary upon return to former positions of employees who have been changed to lower grades. The pertinent facts in a typical case are: On May 22, 1944, the employee was promoted to the position of supervisor, claims review unit, Chicago Area Office of the Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, CAF-9, $3,200. On July 1, 1945, she was given a periodic pay increase and statutory pay adjustment to the second step of CAF-9, $3,750. On July 1, 1946, her salary was adjusted in accordance with the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1946 to $4,275. On July 14, 1946, she was returned to her previous position as adjudication reviewer, CAF-8, because of the return of an employee from military service. In accordance with the policy of the Social Security Administration in fixing salary in such cases, her salary was fixed at the third step of the grade, $4,024.20. On December 15, 1946, she was promoted to the position of supervisor, claims review unit, which she had held from May 22, 1944, to July 14, 1946, and her salary was fixed (in accordance with 24 Comp. Gen. 226) at the second step, $4.275. Although she was eligible for a periodic increase effective July 14, 1946, on the basis of completion of waiting period, a regular efficiency rating on |