148 C. Cls. to recover back pay claimed to be due on account of an illegal reduction in force. On January 20, 1960, the court rendered an opinion and denied defendant's motion for summary judgment, remanding the case to a trial commissioner of the court for the taking of evidence on certain issues. On January 29, 1960, the court issued an order as follows: This case comes before the court on its own motion relative to the opinion rendered in this case on January 20, 1960, on defendant's motion for summary judgment which presented three questions for determination: (1) The sufficiency of plaintiff's notice of discharge pursuant to a reduction in force; (2) Plaintiff's qualifications for other agency positions, and (3) Whether there was in fact a reduction in force pursuant to which plaintiff was discharged. Upon reconsideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED this twenty-ninth day of January 1960 that the opinion of January 20, 1960, in this case be and the same is vacated and withdrawn, and upon said reconsideration it is found that plaintiff's notice of discharge met the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 861 and the applicable regulations; that plaintiff's showing with respect to the decision by the Civil Service Commission as to his job qualifications is insufficient to warrant further proceedings by the court on that question, MacCallum v. United States, 135 C. Cls. 336, and Ciaffone v. United States, 126 C. Cls. 532, but that with regard to the third question there is present an issue of fact upon which plaintiff is entitled to go to trial, and IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion for summary judgment be and the same is granted as to questions (1) and (2), but denied as to (3). The case is returned to the trial commissioner for further proceedings with regard to the question as to whether there was in fact a reduction in force pursuant to which plaintiff was discharged. BY THE COURT. MARVIN JONES, On July 25, 1960, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss his cause of action with prejudice which was allowed on August 9, 1960. REPORT OF DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN COURT OF CLAIMS CASES NATIONAL AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. THE UNITED STATES No. 386-55 [145 C. Cls. 505; 361 U.S. 895] Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court November 16, 1959. WILLIAM K. WARREN AND NATALIE O. WARREN, PETITIONERS, v. THE UNITED STATES No. 73-55 HOWARD E. AND MABEL H. FELT, ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. THE UNITED STATES No. 272-55 [145 C. Cls. 571; 361 U.S. 916] Plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court December 7, 1959. 729 INDEX-DIGEST ACTIVE DUTY PAY. See Military Pay. ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS. See Contracts. ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. See Civilian Pay; Contracts; Military Pay. AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD. See Military Pay. AIR FORCE REGULATIONS. See Military Pay. ANNUAL LEAVE PAYMENT. See Civilian Pay. ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT COMPONENT. See Mili- ATTORNEYS' FEES. See Taxes. AUTHORITY OF GOVERNMENT AGENT. See Contracts. BOUNDARIES. See Eminent Domain. BURDEN OF PROOF. See Evidence; Patents. Before the Court of Claims will consider a plaintiff's claim that Officers 72 (2) 731 148 C. Cls. CIVILIAN PAY-Continued CLAIM FOR BACK PAY. How established. In general. To invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims in a suit to re- A request for a "hearing" and a chance to face one's accusers is not Unless a preference eligible asserts his right to answer personally, Involuntary annual leave during notice period. Right to pay for such leave. The placing of an employee on involuntary annual leave is a sus- such period. Hart, 10. Officers 72(1) United States 39 (8) Notice period. What constitutes 30-day notice. Where a civilian employee of the Government entitled to the benefits letter of charges on August 31, is thereafter on September 30 later the ef |