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 one in Nepal were so different as to make the attempted comparison invalid. A better comparison was with retired servicemen in India.
Judges:
Sullivan J
Citations:
Times 10-Mar-2003, [2003] EWHC 445 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
European Court of Human Rights 14
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 . .
See Also – Limbu and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others Admn 30-Sep-2008
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Armed Forces, Discrimination
Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.180079
