§ 20. Colonel ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the decision that non-commissioned officers and men of twenty-one years' service should receive their pension in addition to their pay, he will state the reason for refusing to make a similar concession to officers who, having attained the age limit of fifty-five, have been compulsorily retained in the Service without retired pay?
§ Mr. FORSTERThe service of enlisted men is normally limited by the Army Act, and they were only liable under that Act for an extra year beyond twenty-one in time of war. As the Military Service Act extended that liability, they have been allowed, if they chose, to draw pension after twenty-two (not twenty-one) years' service. The service of officers is not limited by statute. No corresponding additional liability has been imposed on them. They have always been liable to be kept in the Service in an emergency, 846 and Articles 120, 522, and 498 of the Royal Warrant definitely state that while so retained they shall continue to serve under the conditions of pay, etc., previously applicable to them.
§ Colonel ASHLEYWhy should different treatment be meted out to an officer who serves over the usual age from that given to a non-commissioned officer or man?
§ Mr. FORSTERBecause in the case of the man there was a definite contract with the State that he might leave the Service, but in the case of the officer it was definitely and clearly understood and laid down that in time of war he was not free to leave the Service.