Army urged to ditch 'up or out' policy in pensioning off Gurkhas
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Britain should reconsider its "anachronistic" policy of pensioning off Gurkhas who fail to rise through the Army's ranks, an employment tribunal urged yesterday.
Under a controversial "up or out" policy agreed in 1947 by Britain, India and Nepal, Gurkhas must leave the Army and be replaced by new recruits if they do not win promotion.
During a four-day hearing, a Gurkha, Navinkumar Gauchan, 40, had accused the Ministry of Defence of "double standards" because the policy does not apply to British soldiers.
The Gurkha, from Colchester, Essex, told the tribunal that a bad annual report while he was a lieutenant with the Queen's Own Gurkha Transport Regiment meant he was overlooked for promotion to captain. As a result, he was pensioned out of the Army in April 2000, ending 20 years of "hard work, dedication and unselfishness" in humiliation. The MoD said Mr Gauchan, who has two children, had always known there was no guarantee about the time he would serve.
In its ruling yesterday, the tribunal in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, said Mr Gauchan was justified in feeling the different treatment for British and Nepalese soldiers was unfair, but, dismissing his case, said that he had wrongly attributed it to racial discrimination.
In his report, the chairman Brian Mitchell said the panel believed Mr Gauchan's real grievance was that he had to return to Nepal before completing the limit for a lieutenant of 24 years' service.
The tribunal said that "up or out", while "historically understandable" should be reviewed by the three countries.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments