Millions of women are up to £50,000 out of pocket after the High Court rejected their appeal against ministers' handling of the rise in the women's state pension age.

Yesterday's ruling means up to 4 million women must keep working after ministers raised their state pension age from 60 to 66.

Tearful protesters chanted 'shame on you' outside the court in London, after judges rejected their argument that the policy was discriminatory based on age, adding that even if it was, 'it could be justified'.

Millions of women are up to £50,000 out of pocket after the High Court rejected their appeal against ministers' handling of the rise in the women's state pension age

The claimants said they were never informed about the plan to increase their state pension age, and found out they would have to carry on working for up to six more years just months before they were due to turn 60.

Those affected have lost out on up to £50,000 each, with officials estimating that the cost of reversing the adjustment would cost more than £180 billion.

Two women – Julie Delve, 61, and Karen Glynn, 63 – brought the legal challenge, arguing that the changes were discriminatory on the grounds of age and sex, and that they were not given adequate notice.

But two High Court judges dismissed their claims on all grounds.

Tearful protesters chanted 'shame on you' outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London today

The claimants said they were never informed about the plan to increase their state pension age

After the ruling, the claimants' barrister, Michael Mansfield QC, said many women born in the 1950s were now 'on the brink of survival'.

Campaigners vowed to 'fight on' and said they were considering an appeal.

The age at which women can claim their state pension – £168.60 a week – used to be 60.

But since 2011, it has been gradually increased, and in November last year it came level with the men's pension age of 65 for the first time.

By 2020, the qualifying age for both sexes will be 66.

Mr Mansfield said the Government had 'pushed women who were already disadvantaged into the lowest class you can imagine'.

He added: 'They're on the brink of survival, and I'm not overstating that.

'This group – especially the percentage of the group affected born in 1953 onwards – are increasingly having taken away from them four to six years' worth of state pension.

'We're dealing with very serious sums: £37,000 to £47,000. I think any citizen would be concerned by that withdrawal.'

'I have to live on £50 a week' Suzanne Coulton, 64, claims she has to live on £50 a week Suzanne Coulton, 64, had to sell her three-bedroom home in London because she couldn't take out her pension. Under the old rules, Mrs Coulton would have qualified for her state pension in 2015. But she will now have to wait until 2021. Instead she receives just £50 a week in personal independence payment, a benefit that covers the extra costs of living with a long-term health condition. It means she has had to carry on working as a part-time teacher. Speaking outside the High Court yesterday, she said: 'Three years ago my husband got very ill. He couldn't get a job so I had to sell the house and move out of inner London to a tiny one-bed house in the country. 'I thought I'd get my pension but now I get only £50 a week to live on. I get really bad asthma. 'Today's decision is deeply upsetting for all of us.' Advertisement

Earlier this year, Money Mail revealed how the Government publicised the changes in a series of baffling newspaper and magazine advertisements, featuring dogs and Monopoly boards, that appeared in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

But judges Lord Justice Irwin and Mrs Justice Whipple noted that the new pension laws did not include a provision to notify the affected women, and ministers were not legally required to do so.

Joanne Welch, of the BackTo60 campaign, which supported the claimants, said the ruling was 'ridiculous'.

She added: 'They told people about the TV licence, but we don't need to know about our pensions? It's an egregious constitutional disregard not to tell anyone. No private pension provider would get away with it.'

Anne Keen, 66, from Liverpool, co-founder of the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign, said she found out about the changes 13 months before she had planned to retire aged 60.

Outside court, she said: 'I'm absolutely appalled by today's decision. You can see, hear and feel the anger. This decision will result in more heartache and hardship for 1950s women.

'I retired in 2013 and lost out on around £20,000. Most of the women here today have lost close to £50,000. It's a travesty.'

Campaigners argue that women born during the 1950s took time out of work to care for children, were paid less than men and could not save as much in occupational pensions, so the change had hit them harder. Barbara Cowlard, 65, an administrator from Kent, said she was never allowed to join a work pension scheme despite paying 48 years of National Insurance contributions.

She said: 'I believe in equality. I believe we should work the same as men but the way it was done was wrong. They threw equality upon us when we were never equal.

'None of us received letters, none of us were told how they were going to do it.'

Jane Shelby, 65, from London, said: 'I never received a letter and I still have not. I didn't find out until I was 63 and a half that I had an extra 18 months' sentence. I don't even remember how I found out. I just heard it somewhere, but not from the Government.

'I should have got it at 60, then it was 64, now it is 66.'

After the ruling, the claimants' barrister, Michael Mansfield QC, said many women born in the 1950s were now 'on the brink of survival'. Campaigners have vowed to 'fight on' and said they were considering an appeal

But the Department for Work and Pensions said it welcomed the High Court judgment

The judges said they were 'saddened by the stories contained in the claimants' evidence', but concluded that 'wider issues' about whether the Government's actions 'were right or wrong or good or bad were not for the court'.

In her submission to the court, Mrs Delve said she had thought she would start getting her state pension when she turned 60 last year. She only discovered she would not get it until she was 66 in 2015, after she overheard a conversation on the train to work.

Marcia Willis Stewart, of law firm Birnberg Peirce, which represented the claimants, described the pension age changes as a 'substantial and far-reaching injustice' and said she was 'deeply disappointed' by the judgment.

Jon Greer, head of retirement policy at Quilter, said: 'It had been claimed that if the equalisation of state pension ages between men and women were to be reversed it could cost the Government in excess of £180 billion so... they will be very relieved.'

The Department for Work and Pensions said it welcomed the High Court judgment.

A spokesman said: 'It has always been our view that the changes we made to women's state pension age were entirely lawful and did not discriminate on any grounds.

'The court decided that arguments the claimants were not given adequate notice of changes to the state pension age could not be upheld. This follows the extensive communications that DWP made to publicise these changes over many years.'