Recall from leave

Continued from previous post.

1. In March 1930 my father applied for another long leave. He was still Office Assistant at the Legal Adviser’s Office. In his remarks the Head of Department (an Acting Legal Adviser) put his recommendation down stating that the work of the office could be carried on as on the previous occasion when he went on leave, i.e. the Chief Clerk acting as Office Assistant with another clerk to assist.

2. However the Government decided to postpone his application for several months pending replacement of the Head of Department. It was not until October, after the replacement, that the new Head of Department followed the application up stating that Mr. M.I. Merican had applied for three months’ vacation leave to commence on 24 October (originally it was 3 June). Subsequently the State Council in its meeting on 29 October, 1930 allowed Office Assistant to have a three months’ vacation leave from 1 November 1930 to 27 January 1931.

3. About two years later on 8 December, 1932 he applied for another four months’ vacation leave on full pay. The leave was to commence on 31 January, 1933. The Head of Department in his remarks recommended the application for approval on condition that he “must have a competent officer to relieve Che Merican.” He further noted:

… Che Merican is occupying his own house and will continue to do so during his leave. …

The State Council on 23 January, 1933 granted him four months’ leave on full pay with effect from 15 February, 1933.

4. However, there arose an urgent matter concerning the translation of the new draft Criminal Procedure Code. In his minute of 9 March, 1933 to the Adviser, the Secretary to Government (S.G.) noted:

… It is desirable to submit the draft to [the State] Council early … It is not possible to do so without further assistance. I suggested to the L.A. to talk it over with Mr M.I. Merican who is now on leave. …

5. Consequently, in his memo of 10 March, 1933 the L.A. informed the S.G. that Che Merican had agreed to do the translation of the ‘new’ Criminal Procedure Code and Courts Enactment, starting as from 17 March, 1933. He further noted:

He [Che Ismail Merican] expects to take 1 – 2 months and you have agreed that he should receive a corresponding extension of his leave. Apparently no question will arise re pay and allowances.

6. Subsequently, the State Council on 3 April, 1933 had allowed that Che Ismail Merican be recalled back from leave to carry out the work of translating the Criminal Procedure Code within a time limit of not more than two months and that he should receive a corresponding extension of his leave.

7. The L.A. was notified about the decision of the State Council upon which he duly responded in his minute dated 12 April, 1933 to the Under Secretary (U.S.). He noted inter alia:

Actually Che Merican finished the translation of the Criminal Procedure Code and Courts Enactment and recommenced his leave on 10 April, 1933 – which means that he must have put in some very hard work. …

8. As a matter of fact the translation of the Code and the Courts Enactment was accomplished in 19 sittings of the Translation Committee which took 19 days. The L.A. in his letter dated 4 July, 1933 to the U.S. stated among other things:

… I have the honour to forward herewith record of the sittings [Sgd. M.I. Merican] held by the Translation Committee in dealing with the Criminal Procedure Code covering a period of 18 days.

... In accordance with the State Council’s approval of 7th Zulhijjah, 1351 [3 April, 1933], … recalling Che Ismail Merican from his leave, I now recommend that a total period of 43 days be formally approved to replace the equivalent period of Che Ismail Merican’s leave which was occupied in attending to the translation of the Criminal Procedure Code.

... Che Ismail Merican will resume duty on the 1st Rabialakhir 1352 [24 July, 1933] …

9. The last time he applied for long leave on full pay was on 25 June, 1936. It was one and a quarter years away from his retirement. At the time he was standing in for Mr. E. la M. Stowell as Acting Superintendent of Education.

10. The State Council granted him the four months’ leave which could commence after he had handed over to the latter upon his resumption of duty. Stowell resumed duty on 1 November, 1936 and Che Ismail Merican commenced his leave on the same date. As he resumed duty on 29 February, 1937 my father was attached to the Office of State Council and the following month appointed Acting 2nd. Under Secretary.

11. It wasn’t all work. There was time for rest and relaxation. In spite of that, my father seemed to put work first before rest.

Note: Mine in square brackets.