Gurkhas lose pension legal battle
Wednesday, 2 July 2008
Print
Email
Former Gurkha soldiers lost their High Court battle today over a pensions deal with the British Government they say has left them struggling to live.
Three retired members of the famous Brigade of Gurkhas failed in a legal challenge affecting thousands of others.
Lawyers for the three - Kumar Shrestha, Kamal Purja and Sambahadur Gurung, all in their late 30s and retired because of ill health - argued they had been treated unlawfully and unfairly.
They said men who enlisted before July last year but retired after had been denied equal pensions because their years of service up to that date were valued at only between 24 per cent and 36 per cent of British rates.
This followed a Ministry of Defence (MoD) decision in March last year to make an offer to transfer Gurkhas' pension benefits from the existing Gurkha Pension Scheme (GPS) into one of the mainstream Armed Forces Pension Schemes (AFPS).
The Gurkhas complained that the new pension transfer arrangements enacted last year were irrational and discriminated against them on the grounds of age.
Rejecting their application for judicial review, Mr Justice Ouseley said the MoD had acted reasonably.
He said: "If there was indirect discrimination on the grounds of age or 'other status', it was justified and proportionate."
Later lawyers for the Gurkhas said they were "saddened" by the judgment and intended to appeal.
Today's case is the latest in a series of legal battles over the rights of Gurkhas, who come from Nepal and have fought and died in the service of the Crown for almost 200 years, winning 13 Victoria Crosses.
They have been involved in every significant conflict since 1947, including the Falklands, Afghanistan and Iraq.
The three applicants say they have relatives fighting shoulder to shoulder with other British troops in Afghanistan.
The Brigade of Gurkhas was based in Hong Kong until the UK colony was handed over to China in 1997, when it moved to the UK, although one infantry battalion remains stationed in Brunei.
Solicitor Philippa Tuckman, of law firm Bolt Burdon Kemp, said in a statement after the ruling: "We are saddened by the court's decision not to order the MoD to review Gurkha pensions.
"Our clients intend to appeal against the judgment. We appeal to the MoD to equalise pensions without waiting for further court proceedings.
"The MoD's changes to Gurkha pensions were marketed as an end to the inequalities between Gurkhas and the rest of the armed forces.
"In fact, a Gurkha who has recently retired through ill-health caused by his service can still be 27 per cent worse off than a UK comrade with equal service."
She added: "A UK military pension is already not generous, and losing 27 per cent of even that makes things very difficult.
"For example, a Gurkha, medically retired last year with 17 years' service, will get just over £4,650 a year. A British soldier in the same position would get about £6,400. The Gurkha gets £1,750 less to live on.
"The difference is because of the far lower value that the MoD puts on years served before 1997 while the administrative headquarters of the Brigade of Gurkhas was in Hong Kong.
"In 1997 Hong Kong was handed back to China and the Brigade headquarters was moved to the UK. The MoD argues that should affect the amount payable now."
Ms Tuckman said: "We do not agree. This money is meant to be lived on, and in this country. Where a man's headquarters were based years ago is no more than an administrative detail. It makes no difference to what he needs right now.
"Gurkhas have served in theatres of war, in danger and in hardship. They should be valued for it, not penalised."
