Landry v. Personnel Appeal Bd.
| Decision Date | 08 January 1952 |
| Citation | 86 A.2d 70,138 Conn. 445 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | LANDRY et al. v. PERSONNEL APPEAL BOARD. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
James F. Rosen, New Haven, with whom was Jack H. Calechman, New Haven, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
William L. Beers, Deputy Atty. Gen., with whom was George C. Conway, Atty. Gen., for the appellee (defendant).
Before BROWN, C.J., JENNINGS, BALDWIN and INGLIS, JJ., and ROBERTS, Superior Judge, concurring.
This case presents the question whether, in the event of a layoff, an employee in the state classified service who is a veteran is entitled to be credited with his war service, as provided in § 339 of the General Statutes, in determining his rights of seniority, under § 66b of the 1951 Cumulative Supplement, over nonveteran employees. Previous to June 29, 1950, the plaintiffs were claims examiners in the state classified service, working in the division of employment security of the department of labor and factory inspection. Because of a decrease in the unemployment compensation claims load, it became necessary to lay off a large number of claims examiners. Among these were the plaintiffs, who are nonveterans. Veterans whose terms of employment, including periods of military service, were longer than those of the plaintiffs were retained because of their seniority. The plaintiffs appealed to the defendant board, which, after a hearing, denied them seniority. The present action, asking for a review of the defendant's decision and for a declaratory judgment, was brought in the Superior Court and comes before us on appeal from the decision of that court sustaining the defendant.
The answer to the question which is determinative of this appeal depends upon the construction of the pertinent statutes. It is a cardinal rule that statutes are to be construed so that they carry out the intent of the legislature. This intent is to be ascertained from the language of the statute itself if the language is plain and unambiguous, otherwise, by considering it in the light of all of its provisions, the object which it seeks to accomplish, the pre-existing legislation upon the same subject matter, and all other relevant circumstances. City of Stamford v. Town of Stamford, 107 Conn. 596, 605, 141 A. 891; Mad River Co. v. Wolcott, 137 Conn. 680, 686, 81 A.2d 119.
Section 339 of the General Statutes provides: "The term of employment in the service of the state shall be construed to include, in the case of a veteran, as the term is defined in section 2925, the term of war service of such veteran, and all records of the state which show the length of service in the employment of the state of any such veteran shall be amended so as to show the length of such war service and the total of such employment service and war service." This statute was enacted in 1939. Cum.Sup.1939, § 664e. The plaintiffs contend that it was the intent of the legislature that it should apply only to those employees of the state whose employment had been interrupted by military service. It would have been a very simple thing for the legislature to have used language plainly indicating such a purpose. It did not do so. When the statute was enacted, there were many veterans of the first world war in the state. The times were filled with rumors of another war. There was a fair prospect that citizens would be called into the military service. This would mean that they would give up their jobs, whether within or without the state service. On their return they might find no employment available. In the light of these facts the legislature used language which was broad in its meaning and was intended to include service in the armed forces within the term "employment in the service of the state". The statute uses the word "veteran" and incorporates within its terms the statutory definition, which at that time was "any resident of this state who is an honorably discharged soldier, sailor, marine, yeomanette or nurse, who served in or with the military or naval forces of the United States in time of war". Cum.Sup.1939, § 624e. The language of the statute expresses the obvious intent that in the state classified service the term of war service of all veterans was to be considered as a term of employment for such period in the service of the state. To insure this result the statute directs that all records which show the length of employment by the state shall be amended so as to include war service in computing the total term of employment.
An examination of the legislative history of the statutes providing for benefits to veterans who were already in or who might thereafter enter the state classified service bears out this interpretation. The merit system for state employees established by law in 1937 gave a credit of five points, and an additional five points if he was disabled, to a veteran on his rating on any examination held for the purpose of establishing an employment list. Cum.Sup.1939, § 662e, as amended, Rev.1949, § 337. At its next regular session in 1939 the General Assembly adopted legislation establishing a retirement system for state employees. General Statutes, Cum.Sup.1939, c. 8a. This provided, § 72e that "any employee of the state who entered the service of the United States during the World War and returned to the service of the state shall be credited with the period of such federal service to the same extent as though it had been a part of the term of his state service." During the second world war the General Assembly made a very significant change in language when it enacted § 29h of the 1945 Supplement. This section granted, to any member of the armed forces who, after discharge, became a member of the state retirement system, credit for the period of service rendered by him during the war, provided he paid, for such period, assessments to the retirement fund based on his first year's earnings. Stated another way, this statute meant simply that the period of war service of all veterans returning to or first entering state service after discharge from military service would be credited toward their retirement if they would pay the necessary assessments. See General Statutes, § 397; Sup.1949, § 32a; Sup.1951, § 84b. These provisions--s 662e, contained in the Merit System Act, and § 29h, in the Retirement Act--provided two separate and distinct benefits for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mack v. Saars
...language of the legislation to resolve the ambiguity. Wilson v. Miller, 144 Conn. 212, 214, 128 A.2d 894; Landry v. Personnel Appeal Board, 138 Conn. 445, 447, 86 A.2d 70; Hartford v. Suffield, 137 Conn. 341, 343, 77 A.2d 760. Courts, in construing statutes, consider their legislative histo......
-
Johnson v. Manson
...itself, if the language is plain and unambiguous. Hurlburt v. Lemelin, 155 Conn. 68, 73, 230 A.2d 36 [1967]; Landry v. Personnel Appeal Board, 138 Conn. 445, 447, 86 A.2d 70 [1952]. Where the legislative intent is clear there is no room for statutory construction. Little v. Ives, 158 Conn. ......
-
State v. Hughes
...is plain and unambiguous, as in this case, the intent of a statute is to be determined from its language. Landry v. Personnel Appeal Board, 138 Conn. 445, 447, 86 A.2d 70. In such a case, the enactment speaks for itself and there is no occasion to construe it. State ex rel. Cooley v. Kegley......
-
Jarvis Acres, Inc. v. Zoning Commission of Town of East Hartford
...to carry out the expressed intent of the legislature. Bridgeport v. Stratford, 142 Conn. 634, 641, 116 A.2d 508; Landry v. Personnel Appeal Board, 138 Conn. 445, 447, 86 A.2d 70; Stamford v. Stamford, 107 Conn. 596, 605, 141 A. 891.' Sloane v. Waterbury, 150 Conn. 24, 29, 183 A.2d 839. Whil......