COLONEL JERVISasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, as in accordance with the Furlough Regulations of 1796, medical officers of the Indian Army who had serveda period of twenty years or upwards were entitled to reckon three years' furlough to Europe out of such period towards service for pension, and that by the Furlough Rules of 1868, Ch. 3, rule xxxiv., published by the Government of India, 10th November 1868, No. 1064, those officers were informed that—
If an officer under the Furlough Rules of 1796 elects the present rules, his service for pension will be reckoned under the former rules up to 1st July 1868, and thenceforward under the rules of 1868—in consequence of which statement many officers did elect such Furlough Regulations of 1868 for the remainder of their service—he can explain the al- 6 teration made in Rule xxxiv. of the Regulations of 1868, republished by the Government of India 25th February 1874, No. 171, that—All periods of leave out of Indian limits taken previous to 1st July 1868 will be wholly excluded from his service for pension,and, how it came to be made retrospective in regard to those who had elected on the faith of the rules as published in 1868?
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONSir, the Indian Army furlough regulations and retiring regulations are two distinct things. Under the retiring regulations of 1796 a certain minimum of years' actual service in India was required, and leave to Europe did not count as actual service in India. For instance, a man who had served 20 years, of which 17 were actual service in India, could retire upon a pension, not because he had 20 years' gross service, but because he had served 17 years actually in India. Under the furlough rules of 1854 and 1868 more favourable conditions were granted to officers, and a certain amount of leave of absence according to length of service was allowed to count "as actual service in India." An officer who, being under the furlough rules of 1796, elected the rules of 1868 would be in this position as regards pension—up to 1868 only his actual service in India would count towards pension, after 1868 a certain amount of leave of absence, according to his rank, would count as actual service in India. The question is rather a complicated one; but no alteration has been made in the rules of 1868, and the notice merely explains a previous notice.