Rosenthal v. Cory

Opinion

COMPTON, J.

Defendant, the Controller of the State of California, appeals from a judgment of declaratory relief in favor of plaintiffs who are all judges of courts, of record of various levels within the state. Six of the plaintiffs served in the state Legislature prior to assuming their judicial offices and one had previous service as a judge of a justice court.

The .“Judges’ Retirement Law” (hereinafter “the law”) (Gov. Code, § 75000 et seq.) provides a basic pension plan for judges of courts of record in this state who qualify on the basis of attaining a specified age in combination with a specified number of

“years of service as a judge.”

(Gov. Code, § 75025.) In computing thesp years of service, judges, who formerly served in the Legislature or on an “excluded court” such as a justice court, are entitled, under certain conditions, to include such "service as part of their “years of service as a judge.” (Gov. Code, §§ 75029, 75030.5.)

In 1973 the retirement law was amended to include the addition of Government Code section 75033.5 which permits a judge with a minimum of 5 years “service” and prior to attaining age 70, to retire and receive a pension when he reaches the age at which he would have been able to retire had he continued to serve as a judge until that age.

On this appeal we are asked to decide whether the term “service” as used in section 75033.5 is identical to “service” under section 75025 of the Government Code, which includes the nonjudicial components of service in the Legislature or service on an “excluded court.” We hold that it is.

[953]

The cardinal principle of statutory construction is that the court should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effect the purpose of that law.

(East Bay Garbage Co.

v.

Washington Township Sanitation Co., 52

Cal.2d 708 [344 P.2d 289].) The statute in question should be construed with due regard to the ordinary meaning of the language used and