HC Deb 13 April 1899 vol 69 cc970-1
SIR SEYMOUR KING () Hull, Central

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India with reference to the Resolution, No. 5047—P, dated Simla, 15th November 1897, by which the Government of India announced that the Secretary of State had sanctioned special concessions to officers employed on duties connected with famine relief or the plague, among which were included the following: to officers so employed for a period of not less than 10 months, cither two months' extra privilege leave, or full pay instead of half-pay for the first four months of furlough, or other leave as above, whether he is aware that Mr. I. G. H. Glass, CLE., was employed in famine work in Bengal from the commencement of the operations, was a member of the Plague Commission from its institution until he left the Service in March last, and that he applied for leave, to which the Bengal Government admitted him to be entitled, as well as to the concession under the above rules, but was refused on the ground that he was required to complete his Report on famine operations in Bengal, and to give evidence before the Famine Commission; whether he is aware that, before this work was completed, he had come under the 55 years' rule, and was compulsorily retired, thus losing the benefit of either alternatives prescribed by the above rule; whether, although the Government of Bengal, in view of his valuable services, recommended that Mr. Glass should be given two months' pay as compensation for the loss of the above privileges which was caused by the action of the Government in retaining him, he has nevertheless been refused any compensation both by the Government of India and the Secretary of State; and whether, under the circumstances, his claim to some compensation will be reconsidered?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,) Middlesex, Ealing

The facts are correctly stated in my honourable Friend's Question. When the Government of India decided to grant certain concessions to those officers who had been employed in famine work, they expressly laid down that the concession should not take the form of a cash bonus, because it was leave and rest that the officers required after their arduous and trying duties, to fit them for further duty. For this reason, while highly appreciating the value of Mr. Glass's services, they declined to make him a money grant after his retirement in lieu of leave. Mr. Glass protested against this decision in a Memorial, which was very fully considered by me in Council, but while fully concurring in the view expressed by all the Indian authorities as to the merits of Mr. Glass's services, I came to the conclusion that I should not in the circumstances be justified in overruling the decision of the Government of India.