HC Deb 19 February 1917 vol 90 cc1011-2W

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the hardship resulting from the operation of Rule 3 (3) of the Bengal and Madras Service Family Pension Fund rules in the case of officers who are members of the widows' branch of the Bombay Uncovenanted Service Family Pension Fund, such rule providing that all men in the services of the Imperial and Provincial Governments of India between the ages of eighteen and seventy whose services qualify for pension from the general revenues shall be eligible as subscribers, with the exception of, inter alia, officers who already subscribe to the Bengal, now closed to new subscribers, or Bombay Uncovenanted Service Family Pension Funds; whether he is aware that the Bombay Fund possesses no children's branch, with the result that an officer who, when the new Bengal and Madras lurid was started, had already joined the older fund to make provision for his wife, is debarred from making provision for his children by joining the new Government-supported fund; whether this is a substantial grievance, as such officer's children will get much smaller benefits for a given premium from an ordinary insurance society not enjoying Government support than from the Bengal and Madras Funds, which, in the case stated, their father cannot join; and whether Rule 3, Clause 3, will be amended so as to open the children's branch of the new fund to officers who may already be subscribers to the Bombay Uncovenanted Service Family Pension Fund (Widow's Branch), in order that every reasonable facility should be given to officers for making provision for their families?


The managing bodies of these funds are in India. I have not heard of any complaints or proposals made to or by them on the points mentioned in the question.