§ DR. KENNY (Dublin, College Green)I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether his attention has been called to the fact that, although Brigade-Surgeon Joynt, in 1883, was 1772 promised by the Bombay Government promotion to the rank of Deputy Surgeon-General on the expiration, in Juue, 1884, of the term of office of Surgeon-General Hewlett, who then held the post, on the expiration of his term of office in June, 1884, Surgeon-General Hewlett was re-appointed for another term of four years; (2) whether there was any precedent for such a course, and why was it sanctioned by the Secretary of State for India; (3) will he explain on what grounds, when the Indian Government recommended that a supernumerary Deputy Surgeon - General should be appointed for Bombay during the extra term of service of Surgeon-General Hewlett, their recommendation was adopted by the Secretary of State for India, and Dr. Cook was appointed to that position instead of Dr. Joynt, to whom it had been promised; (4) for what reason was Dr. Cook promoted, seeing that he had been previously declared ineligible for promotion; (5) is he aware that Dr. Joynt has been compelled by the Rules of the Service to retire at 58 years of age, his pension being £550 instead of £700, to which he would have been entitled had he received the promotion promised to him; (6) and whether, seeing that the Government of Bombay, with a full knowledge of his services and the facts of his case, recommended that Dr. Joynt should be awarded the full pension of £700, the Secretary of State for India will now advise the adoption of that recommendation?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELL(1.) Brigade-Surgeon Joynt was never promised the promotion which he claimed. (2) The Secretary of State is not aware of any precedent, but the appointment was not contrary 1o any rule. (3) The Government of Bombay, in the exercise of their discretion, recommended Dr. Cook, the Senior Brigade-Surgeon, for the supernumerary Deputy Surgeon-Generalship created to compensate the Bombay Medical Service for the loss of promotion caused by Dr. Hewlett's reappointment. Dr. Joynt, as already stated, had not been promised promotion. (4) Dr. Cook had not been declared ineligible for the promotion which he received. (5) Had Dr. Joynt been promoted and allowed to remain in the Service he would have received a higher 1773 pension; but, as stated, he was never promised promotion. (6) The Government of Bombay recommended that Brigade-Surgeon Joynt should be allowed to have his service extended in order that he might then qualify for the higher pension of £700; but the Secretary of State in Council did not consider that such extension would be consistent with the interests of the Public Service.
§ DR. KENNYIn consequence of the answer just given, I beg to give notice that I will, on the Estimates, call attention to this case of gross hardship and injustice.