You cannot talk about honour and war heroes without taking into account the cost

Leslie Lumber's lawyer

The additional pension he was then entitled to was back-dated only to 1992 and not to the time of the injury or 1968 when he first made the claim.

At the High Court on Tuesday, Mr Lumber's lawyers accused the government of a "moral injustice" by denying "a hero who did his duty for his country" thousands of pounds in pension rights.

They were applying for permission to challenge the decision by the War Pensions Agency not to refer the case to Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon.

They argued that, on moral and ethical grounds, the pensioner was at least entitled to a special additional payment.

But Mr Justice Stanley Burnton ruled there was no legal basis on which he could give the challenge the go-ahead.

'No grounds'

He said: "I fully understand the moral and ethical dimensions of Mr Lumber's claim and can only have the fullest sympathy with him in his attempt to obtain in full a back-dated, enhanced pension.

"Regrettably I am driven to the conclusion that this application for permission should not succeed and there are no arguable grounds for this case to go forward."

Later Owen Corbett, who is acting for Mr Lumber, of Bristol Road, Bridgwater, Somerset, said his client was "disappointed and upset" by the ruling.

"Mr Lumber is an ordinary sailor who did his duty for his country and was seriously injured - and now the government is denying him the right to thousands of pounds to which he should really be entitled.

"For years they said his psychological injuries were not due to his war service, but he fought and eventually proved the medical men wrong.

"At the end of the day it is a matter of what is right. You cannot talk about honour and war heroes without taking into account the cost."