In July 1969, the government had to explain about the war service pension to the public.

This was because government had been accused of being unfair to a war veteran, J R Campbell.

The government, according to the Fiji Times on July 1, 1969, had not counted Mr Campbell’s wartime military service when they calculated his civil service pension.

The article reported that a public explanation had been requested because of it.

A government statement said Mr Campbell had joined the army during World War II but had not been in the civil service before that.

He served in the forces during the war and was demobilised at the end of it. He had also served until 1965 when he asked to retire to accept a job in a private enterprise.

“However he would then not normally have been eligible for any pension at all because he was below the minimum age at which pensions could be paid,” the government statement said.

Preserving his position, Mr Campbell had asked for two years leave of absence without pay and that was most unusual.

But after considering the circumstances the government had approved the request as a special case.

According to The Fiji Times article, it was felt that Mr Campbell could’ have made a more valuable contribution to production in the position to which he wanted to go than by remaining in government.

That had preserved Mr Campbell’s civil service pension.

Had his request not been approved; it would not have been possible to pay Mr Campbell a pension at all.

The other effect of the decision was that if, for any reasons, Mr Campbell changed his mind during those two years, he would have been able to return to the civil service without any loss.

When his civil service pension was first calculated, his war service was mistakenly taken into account under a regulation made 15 years after the war.

That regulation had been made specially to assist regular soldiers and sailors who were to lose their careers when it was decided about 1958 to disband the Fiji Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve (FRNVR) and reduce the Fiji Military Forces.

When the decision was made, the government did everything possible to help those career soldiers and sailors upon their discharge.

The help had included transfers to the civil service for some of the men.

The pension’s regulations were amended in 1960 to allow the army and navy time for those men to count as pensionable if they immediately transferred to the civil service.

That new regulations were intended to apply to the soldiers and sailors whose careers with the armed forces were being curtailed by the disbandment of the FRNVR and run-down of the FMF in the late 1950s.

This newspaper reported that it was never intended to apply to ex-servicemen who had enlisted and served for the duration of World War II.

“Wrongly, however the benefit of that regulation had been applied to Mr Campbell,” the Government statement said.

When the mistake was discovered in January 1968, Mr Campbell was at first asked to refund the over payment totalling $923.65.

The article then reported that upon representations being made, the matter was reviewed and it was decided a refund would not be required.

“It was unfortunate the mistake was made, but the Government did not agree that it was unjust to Mr Campbell to correct it,” the government statement said.

Mr Campbell according to the newspaper report, still drew the pension for his 18 years civil service, which was protected by the special arrangements described.

“Regarding the position of World War II veterans generally, it was true consideration recently given to amending regulations to allow the war service of any ex-serviceman to count for pension if he joined the civil service immediately after the war without having previously been a civil servant,” the government statement said.

“This was decided against.

On discharge after the war, ex-servicemen received a wartime gratuity. “This followed the practice in other Commonwealth countries.

“Probably no more could be afforded, but certainly it would have been wrong to have treated those ex-servicemen on discharge more favourable then the many others who did not.”

The passage of 24 years since the war would make such an arrangement even more discriminatory because of the many that had in the interval retired without having the same treatment.

The statement said these decisions were in no way intended to impugn the glorious record of Fiji’s Armed Services during World War II and it was hard to see how they could possibly have been construed as doing so.