BGWS Update on Various Routes Being Considered to Further the Case for Equal Pensions

Rating: 12 user(s) have rated this article
Posted by: santosh, on 1/19/2010, in category "Gurkhas-related articles"
Views: this article has been read 560 times

Gurkhas Injustice Continues

The Judicial Review brought against the Ministry of Defence by the British Gurkha Welfare Society (BGWS) in the High Court on 27/28 October 2009 announced its verdict after a prolonged silence on 11 Jan 10, finding that that the Pension arrangements for Gurkhas do not breach the Human Rights Act and that even though the Ministry of Defence did not undertake an equality risk assessment before the new pensions arrangements were introduced, there was no breach by them of the equality duty. This leaves many Gurkhas disillusioned and disappointed that the discrimination will continue against veterans who served in the British Army prior to July 1997 and a group of those retired post July 1997.

The BGWS legal team will be applying to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal with a view to ultimately knock the doors of European Court of Human Rights. We are also contacting the Commission of Equality and Human Rights to see if they may be interested in intervening in one aspect of our case, in the light of the court's approach to date. Other legal options are being explored also.

The Court has also referred to the Immigration Rules change in 2009 and confirmed that these are irrelevant for the purposes of determining the legality of the introduction of GOTT.   

The two earlier Judicial Reviews of 2003 led by GAESO and 2008 led by three individuals classed as the Gurung JR (purely for post July 1997) were both funded by legal aid. This disallowed any further legal fund assistance as the case was on common grounds and both the earlier judged in favor of the MOD.   As a result our JR had to be self funded.  It is known fact litigation is an expensive venture.  As for our costs the monthly Whitehouse Consultancy bill now augmented by the MOD claim for which a bill (subject to negotiation and, if necessary, review by the court) is awaited, places a heavy financial constraint on the campaign.

We are also concurrently strongly pursuing the political route and continue our meeting with the MPs.   Since the JR hearing we have already held two successful meetings with the MPs (Labour and Lib Dem) with a further meeting scheduled for 20 Jan 10.    

Regarding our stance, the whole argument can be read from the Hansard files and for ease of reference we have also placed the whole transcript on our website www.bgws.org

Last but not least those who express concern that BGWS do not refer to the Tripartite Agreement or heed any advice please rest assured we have and continue to consider any advice that is sound and legally based.  As for TPA and Nepal Government’s sworn support, I would urge those interested to read the Hansard Papers first and importantly paragraph 53 in whole which culminates as follows:

“The Indian Government felt it inappropriate to comment on TACOS (terms and condition of service) of those serving in the British Army and was content for the matter to be dealt with bilaterally between the British and Nepalese Government.  The latter were consulted on proposed changes to the TACOS, including pension arrangements.  So too were representative groups in the United Kingdom and Nepal.”

BGWS takes this opportunity to thank all its well wishers and supporters for the stand we have taken to fight the injustice in the best possible way – legally and politically.   The JR result was anticipated and is not a total loss in the true sense.  Despite GAESO’s JR 2003 and the Gurung 2008 defeats BGWS did manage a hearing and importantly the possibility to seek justice in the European Court of Human Rights.  While the political route too is progressing smoothly.