Case ID: us-ct-cl_154/html/0852-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Whitaker, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HERMANN R. HABICHT v. THE UNITED STATES
    [No. 102-55.
    Decided June 6, 1962]
    
    
      
      Samuel T. Ansell, Jr., for plaintiff.
    
      Gerson B\ Kramer, with whom was Assistant Attorney General William H. Orrioh, Jr., for defendant.
    
      
      The court on its own motion, pursuant to Rules 53(e) and 54(a) of the rules of the court, entered an order on June 29, 1962, correcting and amending the opinion. The text of the opinion as it appears here reflects the amendment made by the order.
    
   Whitaker, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

In the opinion handed down on June 7,1961, ante, p. 838, we held that plaintiff was entitled to accrued annual leave during the period of his suspension, in addition to the annual leave he had accrued as of January 1, 1952, which was the maximum number of hours he could accrue as of that date had he not been suspended. We had so held in Hynning v. United States, 141 Ct. Cls. 486. Since that time, however, the court has decided Zeiger v. United States, decided November 1, 1961, 155 Ct. Cl. 353, in which we overruled Hynn-ing and other cases, and held that an employee could not accrue annual leave during the period of his suspension in excess of the maximum annual leave he could accumulate up to the date of his suspension. We have followed Zeiger in a number of subsequent cases. We think it was correctly decided; hence, defendant’s motion to alter our former judgment is allowed and that part of our former judgment holding that plaintiff was entitled to recover accrued annual leave during the period of his suspension, will be vacated and set aside; otherwise the judgment will stands opinion of June 6, 1961, in all other respects will stand, the petition will be dismissed and an appropriate conclusion of law will be entered.

Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment and for a re-hearing is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dtjrebe, Judge; Laramore, Judge; and JoNes, Chief Judge, concur.

Davis, Judge, took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.