§ 59. Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether general officers commanding divisions in India when sent to command divisions on service in Mesopotamia have had their pay cut by Rs.500 per mensem; and whether he can state for what reason this reduction of pay was approved by him?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe pay of a substantive divisional command in India is Rs.3,500 per mensem. II an officer holding such an appointment commands a division in the field, he continues to draw that rate, and not the lower rate fixed for an Indian divisional command in the field. I am not aware of any such reduction as the hon. and gallant Member suggests.
§ 60. Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that certain officers joined the Indian Army under regulations which laid down, for them a pension of £l,120 per annum, on completing thirty-eight years' service; that later on those officers were deprived of that pension and informed that in future Indian Army officers were to be retired after thirty-two years' service in a pension of £700 a year, but were to be allowed to serve on for thirty-eight years to obtain a pension of £750; that officers serving on for their £750 are now being further penalised by the fact that officers retired on £700, who are being temporarily employed by the War Office, draw their full pension of £700 a year, and are eligible for the respective gratuities laid down for such employment and also for the allowance for the provision of uniform, whilst those officers who are serving on for their £750, who are being similarly employed by the War Office, are refused the grant for uniform, are ruled to be ineligible for the gratuities, and are having deductions made by the India Office from their unemployed pay of £700" a year; and whether he will take steps to have this difference of treatment adjusted by having the two categories of officers placed on the same footing as regards emoluments, gratuities, and grants for uniform?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINWith reference to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, I am not prepared to reopen a matter which was fully considered and finally decided many years ago. As 197 regards the emoluments of "unemployed" officers of the Indian Army whose services are utilised by the War Office, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to his question No. 64 of 4th July last. I am unable to admit a claim on the part of these officers to be put on the same footing as officers who had actually retired before the War. The grant of an outfit allowance to such officers is dealt with by the War Office, but, so far as I am aware, since 4th December, 1914, no distinction has been made between such officers and re-employed retired officers in this matter
§ Colonel YATEWill these officers be placed in a different position to the officers employed on the retired list either in the English, the Egyptian, or any other Army? Has the Indian officer to suffer through a technicality?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINNo, Sir; I do not think that that is a correct representation of the facts.