§ SIR SEYMOUR KING (Hull, Central)
I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in admitting the rights of certain of their civil officers to the exchange compensation allowance which was granted generally in 1893 to Anglo-Indian employees of the Indian Government, subject to reservations with regard to certain services and to special circumstances or questions of domicile, the Indian Government, in cases where it has been proved that the recipient's claim to the compensation was good from the first, has nevertheless brought such recipient under regulations which only admit his claim to the compensation as having effect from 1st April, 1897; whether he is aware of the case of Mr. Charles Edmond-stone Ross, of the Public Works Department, who was refused the compensation allowance in 1893, on some interpretation of the law of domicile, but has since been admitted to the privilege but only with effect from 1st April, 1897; whether Mr. Ross has applied to the Government of India to grant him the full arrears of allowance having effect from the date when it was granted in 1893, on the ground that he was entitled to it at that date, citing in proof thereof the fact that it was then granted to his brother and sister, both in the Government service, whereas it was refused to him, and that as regards questions of parentage, service, domicile, etc., there was no substantial distinction between the conditions of his case and those of his brother and sister; and whether he will explain on what ground, while recognising that Mr. Ross had a claim to the allowance, the Government of India has declined to grant him the full arrears of compensation conceded in other and similar cases.
§ LORD G. HAMILTON
Exchange compensation was granted in 1893 under certain regulations in which the question of domicile was an important element. In 1897 the rules were altered, and the allowance was granted under other conditions, one of which was that the allowance must not be given to a native of India as defined by Statute. It is clear that many officers may have been eligible under the later regulations, who were not so under the earlier orders. Mr. Ross is one of a large number of officers from whom memorials were 872 received in 1894 and 1895, as to which the Secretary of State in Council decided that he could not entertain appeals from the decisions of the Government of India based on his general instructions.