Service pension

On reading the law report (No Fundamental Right For Any Particular Amount Of Pension, February 19), I felt that it was inconceivable that "discrimination", the bogey of democratic practice, seemed to have triumphed over common sense and natural law.

It is strange, not to say unprincipled, that a perceived injustice is cited as proof to perpetuate another injustice, called into question, when the court of first instance found for defendants.

Suffering analogous groups of pensioners should not have been quoted as evidence to castigate the plaintiffs, who strongly feel they are not receiving value for money they had contributed compulsorily. Two wrongs do not make a right!

What does not make much sense to me is that the Court of Appeal decreed that, while national insurance contributors (everyone, that is) have a right to a pension, pensioners have no right to the amount of pension they are awarded, notwithstanding a whole gamut of rates and tariffs in the Social Security Act, which is the law by which pension amounts are legally regulated.

It wouldn't be the first time if a court registrar were to explain such a judgment.