HC Deb 20 February 1907 vol 169 cc824-5
MR. MEEHAN (Queens' County, Leix)

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Mr. Charles McGanagall, managing clerk, Roorkee workshops, was prematurely and irregularly retired from the public service, that Mr. McGanagall was up to 1877, in permanent employment in the accounts branch of the Public Works Department and was transferred, in the interest of the Government as managing clerk in the Roorkee workshops on the understanding that the appointment was permanent and pensionable, like the one he was leaving, and under a special agreement that he should remain there to the end of his service, i.e., to the age of at least fifty-five years; that, notwithstanding these conditions and the Civil Service Regulations regarding retirements, the post was abolished and Mr. McGanagall dismissed and placed on penion in 1897, when he was only forty-eight years of age and had still seven years service before him under the fifty-five year rule; that Mr. Mc Ganagall's appeals against this treatment were ignored, that other employment was not given him, or any compensation allowed for the loss of his appointment, as had been recommended by the workshop superintendent, and that his pension of Rs.250, which he had earned under the rules, was withheld till 1898, when, owing to the circumstances of his retirement, it had to be specially sanctioned by the Secretary of State; and whether, seeing that, if Mr. Mc Ganagall had been allowed to retire in the ordinary course, he would have received full-pay at Rs.500, instead of a half-pay pension of Rs.250, for the seven years in question, and that he has thus lost the sum of Rs.21,000, or with interest about Rs.25,000, by his premature and enforced retirement, the Government will now grant Mr. Mc Ganagall some compensation in consideration of such loss.

(Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) A memorial was submitted by Mr. Mc Ganagall to Lord George Hamilton in 1898, praying for compensation on account of his enforced retirement, and after a careful consideration of the case his prayer was rejected. I do not see any sufficient reason for re-opening the question.