Nilsson v. State Personnel Board

PULLEN, P. J.

Heretofore petitioner, a civil service employee, had been reinstated in the department of agriculture

(Nilsson

v.

State Personnel Board, 25

Cal. App. (2d) 699 [78 Pac. (2d) 467]), and in accordance with the judgment therein rendered, had been paid all salary to which he was entitled. Respondents, however, refused to pay to petitioner any interest upon the unpaid back salary, and upon presenting the matter to the superior court, a peremptory writ of mandate was issued requiring and directing the payment of such interest. From that order this appeal is taken.

The sole question for consideration is, therefore, whether or not the adjudication in the

mandamus

proceeding, ordering payment to an improperly dismissed state civil service employee of salary during the period between dismissal and reinstatement, is such a judgment as will bear interest from the date of its entry under the provisions of section 22, article XX, of the state Constitution.

We are in accord with the claim of appellants that an adjudication in a

mandamus

proceeding ordering an officer to perform a duty required of him by law, is not a money judgment, and therefore is not such a judgment as will bear interest. This principle has been heretofore announced in the case of

Sheehan

v.

Board of Police Commrs.,

188 Cal. 525 [206 Pac. 70], In that case the petitioner, after dismissal from the police department of the city and county of San Francisco, sought by writ of mandate to compel his restoration as a disabled retired police officer. The superior court entered judgment annulling the orders dismissing petitioner and adjudging that he have and receive his accrued

[188]