The applicants who were retired Gurkha soldiers challenged the decision of the Secretary of State to impose a cut off of disallowing those who had retired from the armed forces before 1997.
Held: The rules applied to the Ghurkas were substantially similar to those applied to other commonwealth citizens retring from the armed forces. However the examples set out as the basis for the exercise of the decision were so restrictive as to be irrational and did not reflect the policy as expressed. The instructions given to the entry clearance officers were unlawful and needed urgent revisiting.
Blake J
[2008] EWHC 2261 (Admin), Times 07-Oct-2008
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Gurung, Pun and Thapa v Ministry of Defence QBD 27-Nov-2002
The applicants were British Nepalese soldiers who had been imprisoned by the Japanese in the second world war. They challenged the decision of the respondent in November 2000 to exclude them from a compensation scheme, but to allow other British . .
See Also – Regina (Purja) v Ministry of Defence; Regina (Lama) v Same Admn 21-Feb-2003
The applicants served as Gurkha soldiers with the army. They claimed that the pensions they received, being substantially less than those paid to other servicemen were discriminatory.
Held: The positions of a retired serviceman in England and . .
See Also – Gurung and Shrestha, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 2-Jul-2008
Second challenge to the lawfulness of the Terms and Conditions of Service and the pension arrangements of the Gurkha soldier retired from the British Army. . .
See Also – Purja and others v Ministry of Defence CA 9-Oct-2003
The applicants were Gurkha soldiers who complained at the differences in treatment of them as against other members of the forces as regards payment, pensions and otherwise, alleged infringement oftheir Article 14 rights, which prevented . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Armed Forces, Immigration
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.276535