§ 2. Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India, considering that under the revised rules for pensions of the Indian Army, a lieutenant-colonel is given an Indian element of £200 per annum, if he will state for what reason is a colonel limited to an Indian element of only £100 per annum; and how is this reduction consistent with the statement in Army Instruction (India), No. 448, of 1920, that the Indian element is for service in the Indian Army?
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher, in the absence of Mr. Montagu)Under former rules a colonel of the Indian Army received the same rate of pension as a lieutenant-colonel, but at the recent revision a higher rate of pension was given to substantive colonels, with a maximum intermediate between that for a lieutenant-colonel and that for a major-general. At the same time it was decided that the maximum pension for general officers should be the same as in the British Service, and it was therefore necessary to reduce the Indian element in a colonel's pension, as otherwise the maximum pension for a colonel would have been the same as for a major-general. I see no inconsistency between this arrangement and the Clause in the Army Instruction (India) referred to by the hon. and gallant Member.
§ Colonel YATEIs the position accepted that for the extra years' service colonels and generals are to receive no compensation?
§ 9. Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that certain officers of the Indian Army 1710 who entered the service prior to 1st July, 1881, and who accepted the offer made to them by the Indian Government of an immediate payment, on attaining 38 years' service, of £50 per annum if they would surrender their right to succeed to the colonel's allowance of £1,127 per annum have, since the 1st of April, 1919, on which date they became entitled to the revised rate of pension granted on account of the rise in the cost of living, been denied payment of that £50 per annum; whether, seeing that this £50 per annum was given in exchange for the surrender of their colonel's allowances, he will explain in what way a revised rate of pension open to the Indian Army generally is held to affect what is a special payment guaranteed in exchange for value received; and will he give directions therefore that the £50 per annum retained be refunded and continued to these officers?
§ Mr. FISHERThe position is not quite correctly stated by the hon. and gallant Member. There has been no offer of an "immediate payment of £50" and no question of "exchange for value received." Officers who entered the Indian Army before 1st July, 1881, had the option of retiring on a pension of £750 per annum or remaining on the unemployed list on £700 per annum pay, with the chance of succeeding to colonel's allowance. During the War retirement was suspended and the option therefore ceased to be effective. Accordingly, in order to remove any possible hardship, such officers were offered unemployed pay at £750, provided that they relinquished their claim to colonel's allowance, which would thus put them in the same position financially as if they had retired. It must be clear to my hon. and gallant Friend that this has nothing to do with the rate of pension to which they are entitled under the new rules.
§ Colonel YATEThey were asked to accept the £50 as immediate extra payment on completion of 38 years' service. Is that extra £50 now to be withdrawn?
§ Mr. FISHERI do not think that the hon. and gallant Member is putting the case quite correctly. If he will look at the answer, he will see that these officers have no grievance.