observing that "legislative intent that the governmental pension constitutes compensation for services rendered over a period of time has been accorded substantial judicial recognition. ….`[T]he basic philosophy underlying pensions to public officers fluctuates between the early view that they were mere gratuities bestowed by the sovereign in recognition of meritorious service previously rendered and the more modern concept that they are some form of delayed wages or salary to compensate the employee during his declining years when he is apt to be less productive for his long and faithful service.'" Citations omitted.
How later courts described this case
- observing that "legislative intent that the governmental pension constitutes compensation for services rendered over a period of time has been accorded substantial judicial recognition. ….`[T]he basic philosophy underlying pensions to public officers fluctuates between the early view that they were mere gratuities bestowed by the sovereign in recognition of meritorious service previously rendered and the more modern concept that they are some form of delayed wages or salary to compensate the employee during his declining years when he is apt to be less productive for his long and faithful service.'" Citations omitted.
- characterizing the doctrine historically as a “judicially-created rule that automatically imposes an inflexible, arbitrary forfeiture” upon public employees
- though only nine of sixty pension statutes required honorable service, honorable service is implicit in every such pension statute
- involving a total forfeiture from the employee's first A-5313-17T3 8 day of employment until the date of the incident, but permitting allowance of service thereafter
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*265 CLIFFORD, J.,
dissenting.
The sordid details of the events that led to plaintiff’s guilty plea on two counts of impairing the morals of a minor need not be recounted here. Suffice it to say that the incidents, obviously involving moral turpitude, were far removed from any connection with plaintiff’s public employment.
The facts of this case may engender certain tender mercies in forbearance of a strict rule that non-job-connected crimes of moral turpitude equate with dishonorable service resulting in loss of pension credits earned up to the time of the offending conduct. But for the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in the companion case of Proccacino v. State, 87 N.J. 265 (1981), I would leave that major revision of our existing law to the Legislature.
I vote to reverse.
For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices SULLIVAN, PASHMAN, SCHREIBER, HANDLER and POLLOCK —6.
For reversal — Justice CLIFFORD — 1.