The opinion
KAUS, J.
I concur entirely in the court’s discussion of the City’s power to raise the rate of contribution without corresponding increased benefits. I also concur in the court’s ultimate conclusion on the issue of estoppel.
On that issue, however, I find it difficult to agree that the representations in the handbook were not—unintentionally, to be sure—misleading. It is difficult to interpret the quoted answer 1 as not saying that the percentage rate of contribution will remain unchanged, except for future adjustments to reflect changes in benefits or increased earnings. 2
*306 Even if the handbook’s statement was misleading, however, additional considerations are relevant here. This court has frequently cautioned “that an estoppel will not be applied against the government if to do so would effectively nullify ‘a strong rule of policy, adopted for the benefit of the public ....’” (City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 462, 493 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 23 , 476 P.2d 423 ].) This principle is applicable to public employees’ pensions. (Longshore v. County of Ventura (1979) 25 Cal.3d 14, 28-29 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 706 , 598 P.2d 866 ].)
Here, there is no proof that anyone has actually been hurt by the handbook’s statement—that any employee has accepted employment or remained on the job in reliance on the misleading answer. The terms of the pension law are prescribed by the City’s charter. Without some substantial showing of actual harm, it would be ludicrous if carefully crafted pension legislation could be effectively amended by a bureaucrat’s somewhat inept attempt at summarization.
“Q. As a member grows older does his rate of contribution change with his age? [H] A. No. The percentage rate of contribution at which a member begins contributing is computed to remain unchanged. This is not to say however, that all rates could not be adjusted at some future time to reflect either changes in benefit provisions of the system or increased earnings of the Retirement Fund.”
There is one additional factor, not mentioned in the court’s opinion. The handbook did contain a statement reading as follows: “The following information is furnished in the hope that it may aid your understanding of your retirement system. The information given here is general in nature, and is not intended to answer every detailed question regarding the system .... You are urged to contact the Retirement Office if you have any questions regarding your benefits or membership status in the system.” If there was a misrepresentation, I doubt whether this boilerplate disclaimer would neutralize it.