§ Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Secretary for India whether, in the case of colonels of the Indian Army who now command British regiments, a large difference of pay exists between those who joined before and those who joined after 1st July, 1881; and, if so, whether he will bring both classes up to the higher standard?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINAn officer who is on the retired list of the Indian Army and who is given the command of a British battalion by the War Office continues to receive his pension in full, and also receives the pay of the appointment which he holds in the British Army. The some rule applies to a retired officer of the British Army if re-employed. An officer who is on the unemployed list of the Indian Army and who is employed to command a British battalion receives the pay of the appointment which he holds in the British Army, and, as an act of grace, is also granted a portion of the pay drawn by him as an unemployed officer. In this respect he is more favourably treated than is an officer of the British Army, who, if re-employed, receives only the pay of his appointment. In either case the liability to serve exists. There is, however, a class of unemployed officers in the Indian Army (limited to those who joined the Indian Army before 1st July, 1881) who, although not technically on the retired list, are not under any liability for further service, and are in many respects treated as retired officers. Such officers belong to what is called the "Unemployed Supernumerary List." The Secretary of State in Council decided that their position was so closely analogous to that of retired officers that he was justified in allowing them the full rate of their unemployed pay in addition to the pay48W of their British appointment in cases where such officers had been re-employed by the War Office. Both retirements and transfers to the Unemployed Supernumerary List were suspended on the outbreak of the War. All unemployed officers of the Indian Army who were not on the Unemployed Supernumerary List at that time remain liable to be called upon for service. For this reason they receive a portion only, and not the whole, of their unemployed pay when employed with a British battalion, irrespective of whether they joined the Indian Army on or after 1st July, 1881. I regret that I am unable to adopt the suggestion made by my hon. Friend. To give an Indian Army officer on the unemployed list who is liable to be called upon for further service his full unemployed pay in addition to the pay of the appointment he is holding in the British Army would place him in an unduly favourable position when compared, on the one hand, with a re-employed British Service officer, and, on the other hand, with an Indian Army officer who has been reemployed in an Indian appointment.