HC Deb 06 March 1924 vol 170 cc1625-6W

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that disabled Regular officers are entitled, concurrently and independently, on separate Royal Warrants, to service pension depending solely on rank and service, together with disablement addition, equal for all ranks and services, depending solely on degree of disablement; whether his attention has been called to a ruling conveyed to a claimant on 7th March, 1923, laying down that Royal Warrant, 19th December, 1919 a Regular officers' disablement warrant), was not intended to provide for Regular officers qualified for service pension under Royal Warrant, 13th December, 1919 (a Regular officers' service pension warrant); whether he is aware that this general ruling destroys the dual concurrent entitlement of disabled Regular officers, and deprives of disablement rights expressly provided by Royal Warrants, not merely that claimant, but a whole class of old disabled Regular officers directly affected by the ruling; and whether he will give instructions that the intentions of the Royal Warrants contained in the text of their preambles and general ruling Clauses shall be applied to this and similar cases?


It is not the case that a Regular officer is entitled concurrently to service retired pay under one Warrant and to disability retired pay under another, although the disability award to such an officer is generally composed of permanent retired pay (either purely for service or for service and disablement combined) with an addition for disablement in the great War. Such an award has, in fact, been made to the officer referred to in the question, but the Royal Warrant of the 19th December, 1919, is not applicable to his case. He has not been deprived of any disablement rights expressly provided by Royal Warrants and has received the utmost that the regulations allow, resulting in a substantial increase of his pre-War pension. The individual case referred to is actually one for the India Office, but as that Department consulted me in reference to it, I am replying to the question.