مجموعة ١/١ "المقيم البريطاني في عدن: تعيين خليفة للسير ج. س. سايمز" [و‎‎٤‎٩] (٢١٢/٩٧)

A.G. No. 3645/32.
Referred to Political Secretary. 17th March, 1932.
For observations on the first paragraph of the
attached letter from the Govt, of Bombay dated 26th
February. The point seems to be not what Lt. Col.
Reilly was actually doing but rather what he should
have been doing, and when the Colonial Office letter
vide flag A was received it appeared that that
Department's view was incontestable. If Sir S. Symes
was entitled to enjoy leave from the appointment up
to 17th April,1931, the appointment of Lt. Co. Reilly
prior to and including that date ought presumably
to have been on an officiating basis only. This
Department's letter to the Govt, of Bombay is flagged
B.
Incidentally the leave salary due to Sir S.Syipes
for the period of leave in question has not yet been
paid, vide e.g. the latest statement from India with
A.G. 3352/32 below. The reason for this is not apparent
but presumably the officer's claim will be settled
ultimately.
(sgd) R.A. Janes.
Accountant General.
I should have thought therefcould be no possible
doubt about this matter. Col. Reilly was definitely
appointed Resident from April . 1 3th. 1931 (C.O.Despatch
of 13th April 1931 P.Z.2270/31,corrected by C.O.
telegram of 21st April, P.Z.2573/31). Furthermore the
Government of India were informed (telegram of 23rd
April No.1343,P.Z.2357/31) that Sir Stewart Symes was
entitled to leave terminating on 17th April. The
Govt./