HC Deb 11 June 1906 vol 158 cc696-7
MR. SEARS (Cheltenham)

To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will explain why H. J. Penson, late Sub-Conductor to the Indian Remount Department, retired, has not received his retirement parchment certificate, and whether he is aware that not having received his parchment certificate his widow, in the event of his death, would not be able to draw the pension or obtain her passage home to India should she desire to return; who is responsible for the non-issue of such certificate; and whether, after twenty-two years with an absolutely clean record, Penson was deprived of his good conduct medal through being promoted to warrant rank three days only before the time arrived when he would have been entitled to it.

MR. MORLEY

A "parchment certificate" of discharge is not given to warrant officers of Indian Army Departments on retirement, but a certificate of service and character would be issued on application. The possession of such a certificate would not affect the eligibility of a widow to pension, nor would it affect her claim to a passage to India. Under the regulations in force when Sub-Conductor Penson was promoted to warrant rank, a non-commissioned officer was required to have at least eighteen years service to qualify for the medal for long service and good conduct. Not only was Penson short of this period by four days when promoted to sub-conductor, but his promotion was subsequently ante-dated nearly two years, with corresponding increase of pay.

MR. SEARS

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the name of H. J. Penson, late of the Indian Remount Department, appears in the Indian Army List January, 1904, non-effective, p. 846, as conductor, whereas he was transferred to pension in India from January 30th, 1901, and only received pension as sub-conductor; will he state whether the conductor's pension shown in the non-effective Army List was actually drawn; and, if so, what became of the difference between the £58 received each year by Penson as sub-conductor and £90 per year he should have received according to rank in the Army List; also, why in the Indian Army List 1904, H. J. Penson is stated to be in India, whereas since 1899 he has been in England and is still drawing his pension in this country.

MR. MORLEY

Sub-Conductor H. J. Penson was placed on the pension establishment in this country on account of ill-health on January 20th, 1901, after two years absence from duty. The Government of India, not knowing that he had been pensioned, shortly afterwards notified his promotion to conductor, with effect from a date subsequent to his retirement. This led to a mistake being made in the India Army List, which, however, was pointed out to the Government of India in May, 1904, and the rank was corrected in the next issue of the Indian Army List. There is no reason to suppose that the pension as conductor has been drawn in India, and the word "India" against Sub-Conductor Ponson's name in the India Army List is an error which will be pointed out to the Government of India.