PUBLIC SERVICES (PENSION RULES). (Hansard, 16 June 1921)

§ Lieut.-Colonel CROFT
asked the Secretary of State for India whether a Public Works officer who elects to come under the revised Indian Pension Rules will, on completing 25 years' service, be at a great disadvantage in comparison with the officer who chooses to remain under the old Rules, as the former, whilst earning only the same pension, is liable on attaining 25 years' service to have his services dispensed with at any time without any reason being given and without receiving any compensation and will only be allowed to retire by permission of the Government, whereas the officer who remains under the old Rules may be removed only for inefficiency or misconduct and can retire whenever he desires?

§ Mr. MONTAGU
I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) on 20th May, 1920. Officers in service on 29th August, 1919, had the option of accepting the new pension rules or coming under the old. The new rules grant higher rates of pension after 25 years' service, as well as higher additional pensions, but Government reserved the right to place a man on the retired list at or after 25 years' service.

§ Lieut.-Colonel CROFT
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that the average expectation of any officer in respect of length of service at which he will reach administrative rank is about 23 years, and that the benefits of the new rules, which consist of enhanced pensions to administrative officers and officers of between 25 and 30 years' service, do not apply to officers retiring or retired before or at this period, he will consider increasing the revised scales to meet the case of officers retiring up to and on completing 25 years' service?

§ Mr. MONTAGU
I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the recent increases of pensions were granted on the recommendations of the Government of India based on the report of the Public Services Commission. I do not see my way to reopen the question.

§ Lieut.-Colonel CROFT
asked the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that the revised scale of pensions recently introduced for the officers of the Public Works Department, India, was introduced on account of the increased 621W cost of living, why no increase whatever in pensions has been granted to those officers who have elected to remain under the old terms in preference to accepting the new terms?

§ Mr. MONTAGU
The increase in pensions referred to is part of the new terms. If an officer elect to remain under the old terms, he obviously cannot get the advantages of the new.

§ Lieut.-Colonel CROFT
asked the Secretary of State for India, whether before the services of an officer of the Indian services could be dispensed with on the reduction of establishment in the past the appointment which the officer held had to be abolished and every endeavour made to obtain other suitable employment for the officer; whether the Civil Service Regulations lay down that the selection of the officer to be discharged should be primâ facie so made that the least charge for compensation pension will be incurred; and, if so, whether he is prepared to qualify the statement he made in the House on 7th June, 1920, in as much as it seems clear that the Government did not always possess the power to dispense with the services of any particular officer for the purpose of reducing the establishment?

§ Mr. MONTAGU
As regards the first part of the question, the Regulation to which my hon. and gallant Friend presumably refers runs as followsA compensation pension is awarded to an officer discharged from the public service because, on a reduction of establishment, his appointment is abolished and other suitable employment cannot be found for him. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative. As regards the third part, my answer of the 7th June, 1920, was correct in respect of officers who had completed the necessary term of service for pension, to whom the hon. Member for Cambridge University was referring. Government has never asserted its intention to exercise a right to dismiss an officer who has not earned his pension merely for the purpose of reducing the establishment.