{ "id": 2725737, "name": "ROBERT SHANAHAN et al., Plaintifls-Appellants, v. POLICEMEN'S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Shanahan v. Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund", "decision_date": "1976-10-21", "docket_number": "No. 61834", "first_page": "543", "last_page": "549", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "43 Ill. App. 3d 543" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "244 N.E.2d 182", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "184" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "41 Ill. 2d 401", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2853933 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "403" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/41/0401-01" ] }, { "cite": "288 N.E.2d 125", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "7 Ill. App. 3d 572", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2668480 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/7/0572-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 N.E.2d 702", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "412 Ill. 430", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2663069 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/412/0430-01" ] }, { "cite": "202 N.E.2d 489", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1952, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 Ill. 2d 566", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2831851 ], "year": 1952, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/31/0566-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 N.E. 435", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "265 Ill. 78", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4777967 ], "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/265/0078-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 N.E.2d 489", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1914, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "365 Ill. 610", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2583325 ], "year": 1914, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/365/0610-01" ] }, { "cite": "336 N.E.2d 97", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "32 Ill. App. 3d 91", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2798471 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "99" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/32/0091-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 N.E.2d 762", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "3 Ill. 2d 556", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2696380 ], "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/3/0556-01" ] }, { "cite": "323 N.E.2d 73", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "25 Ill. App. 3d 238", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2701749 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/25/0238-01" ] }, { "cite": "201 N.E.2d 849", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 Ill. 2d 360", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2832542 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/31/0360-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 S. Ct. 716", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "21 L. Ed. 2d 706", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "393 U.S. 1062", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11419267, 11419461, 11419301, 11419497, 11419229 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/393/1062-02", "/us/393/1062-04", "/us/393/1062-03", "/us/393/1062-05", "/us/393/1062-01" ] }, { "cite": "239 N.E.2d 831", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "40 Ill. 2d 224", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2856936 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/40/0224-01" ] }, { "cite": "298 N.E.2d 391", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "12 Ill. App. 3d 102", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2850166 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/12/0102-01" ] }, { "cite": "199 N.E.2d 769", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 Ill. 2d 69", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2832377 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/31/0069-01" ] }, { "cite": "394 U.S. 802", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6180874 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/394/0802-01" ] }, { "cite": "277 F.Supp. 14", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 5330241 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/277/0014-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 N.E.2d 95", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "28 Ill. App. 2d 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5218280 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/28/0139-01" ] }, { "cite": "241 N.E.2d 587", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "100 Ill. App. 2d 20", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2821744 ], "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/100/0020-01" ] }, { "cite": "144 N.E.2d 436", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "14 Ill. App. 2d 153", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5174760 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/14/0153-01" ] }, { "cite": "236 N.E.2d 402", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "93 Ill. App. 2d 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2646776 ], "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/93/0167-01" ] }, { "cite": "280 N.E.2d 744", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "4 Ill. App. 3d 273", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2920057 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/4/0273-01" ] }, { "cite": "279 N.E.2d 486", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "3 Ill. App. 3d 671", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2838586 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/3/0671-01" ] }, { "cite": "256 N.E.2d 758", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "45 Ill. 2d 75", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2897157 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/45/0075-01" ] }, { "cite": "312 N.E.2d 596", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 Ill. 2d 353", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5408379 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/57/0353-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 N.E.2d 597", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "405 Ill. 440", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2627691 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/405/0440-01" ] }, { "cite": "206 N.E.2d 709", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "32 Ill. 2d 421", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2840216 ], "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/32/0421-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 U.S.C. \u00a71623", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 765, "char_count": 15429, "ocr_confidence": 0.866, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.8836287404985156e-07, "percentile": 0.9010110241948469 }, "sha256": "c259f8288a2de639867dd0eecd3b749a86430867f1719108bd397a1cde745bd4", "simhash": "1:6566296d2d679454", "word_count": 2596 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:30.289259+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ROBERT SHANAHAN et al., Plaintifls-Appellants, v. POLICEMEN\u2019S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE MEJDA\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Cook County affirming a decision by the Retirement Board of the Policemen\u2019s Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago (Board) denying the applications of plaintiffs Robert Shanahan and Howard Goodrich for pensions.\nThe facts are not in dispute. Plaintiffs are both former members of the Chicago Police Department. Plaintiff Shanahan entered service on February 11, 1946, and plaintiff Goodrich on April 14,1950. During their service as policemen, in accordance with the provisions of the Policemen\u2019s Annuity and Benefit Fund Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 108/2, pars. 5 \u2014 101 to 5 \u2014 229) (hereinafter Policemen\u2019s Annuity Act), certain deductions were made from their salaries and transferred to the Benefit Fund; in addition, certain contributions were made by the city in behalf of future beneficiaries.\nOn July 5, 1972, both plaintiffs were convicted of the Federal felony offense of perjury for having given false testimony before a Federal grand jury. (18 U.S.C. \u00a71623 (1970).) However, at the time, perjury was a misdemeanor under Illinois law. Both officers were sentenced to two years\u2019 probation and both immediately resigned from the police force and filed applications for pensions with the Board.\nOn September 25, 1972, the Board denied the claims of both plaintiffs, relying upon section 5 \u2014 227 of the Policemen\u2019s Annuity Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 108/2, par. 5 \u2014 227), which precludes payment to a person convicted of any felony relating to or arising out of or in connection with his service as a policeman. Plaintiffs filed a timely complaint pursuant to the Administrative Review Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 110, pars. 264 et seq). Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order affirming the decision of the Board from which plaintiffs appeal. The right of plaintiffs to a refund of their respective contributions to the fund is not disputed. They admit that the perjury convictions were \u201cservice connected.\u201d\nOn appeal plaintiffs contend (1) that the words \u201cconvicted of any felony\u201d as used in section 5 \u2014 227 of the Policemen\u2019s Annuity Act were not intended to include a conviction of perjury under Federal law for the purpose of the denial of pension benefits; (2) that the denial of plaintiffs\u2019 pension rights based on section 5 \u2014 227 violates article XIII, section 5, of the Illinois Constitution; (3) that the use of section 5 \u2014 227 to deny plaintiffs\u2019 pensions for conviction of a felony in a Federal court violates the due process and equal protection provisions of both the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. XIV) and the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, \u00a72); and (4) that the denial of plaintiffs\u2019 pensions violates article I, section 11, of the Illinois Constitution which provides in part: \u201cNo conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.\u201d\nThe threshold issue before this court upon which plaintiffs\u2019 case rests is whether section 5 \u2014 227 of the Policemen\u2019s Annuity Act is applicable to deny their pension claims. We hold that the section does not apply to policemen who entered service prior to July 11,1955. Since both plaintiffs were members of the police department prior to that date, the section does not operate to bar the pension claims in the instant case. It is therefore unnecessary to reach the other contentions raised by plaintiffs.\nWhen plaintiffs first became members of the Chicago Police Department the only provision relating to loss of pension benefits for reason of a felony conviction provided: \u201cWhenever any person who shall have received any benefit under this Act shall be convicted of a felony 080 such policeman shall receive no further pension allowance or benefit under this Act.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1953, ch. 24, par. 910.) (Emphasis added.)\nClearly, this provision applied only to officers who were convicted of a felony after they had already been receiving benefits of some kind. It was not until July 11, 1955 that a predecessor of section 5 \u2014 227 was enacted, which provided in pertinent part:\n\u201cNotwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of the benefits herein provided for shall be paid to any person who is convicted of any felony relating to or arising out of or in connection with his service as a policeman.\nAll future entrants shall be deemed to have consented to the provisions of this Section as a condition of coverage.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1955, ch. 24, par. 945a.) (Emphasis added.)\nIn 1961, a new Policemen\u2019s Annuity and Benefit Fund Act was enacted (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1961, ch. 24, pars. 10 \u2014 7\u20141 to 10 \u2014 7\u201472). It included section 10 \u2014 7\u20143 (par. 10 \u2014 7\u20143) which contained the above former provisions with minor changes in wording. Finally, in 1963, the Illinois Pension Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1963, ch. 108%, pars. 1 \u2014 101 to 23 \u2014 103) was enacted, which specifically repealed numerous enactments which had covered the same subject matter (par. 23 \u2014 102). Section 5 \u2014 227 of the present Policemen\u2019s Annuity Act replaced section 10 \u2014 7\u20143 of the 1961 Act and is the statutory provision at issue here. As finally amended in 1969, it provides:\n\u201cNone of the benefits provided for in this Article shall be paid to any person who is convicted of any felony relating to or arising out \"of or in connection with his service as a policeman.\nNone of the benefits provided for in this Article shall be paid to any person who is convicted of any felony while in receipt of disability benefits.\nThis section shall not operate to impair any contract or vested right heretofore acquired under any law or laws continued in this Article, nor to preclude the right to a refund.\nAll future entrants entering service subsequent to July 11,1955, shall be deemed to have consented to the provisions of this section as a condition of coverage. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 108%, par. 5\u2014 227.)\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nOf primary importance in the instant case is the last paragraph of section 5 \u2014 227. Its intent is clear and unaitibiguous that the section was not peant to apply to those officers who entered service prior to July 11, 1955. This conclusion is bolstered by section 5 \u2014 111 of the Policemen\u2019s Annuity Act (ch. 108%, par. 5 \u2014 111) which specifically defines the term \u201cfuture entrant\u201d as \u201c(a) A person employed by a city as a policeman for the first time on or after the effective date; (b) A former policeman of a city who reenters the police service on or after the effective date; \u201d \u201d\nOrdinarily, the use of such clear language indicates that no exercise in statutory construction is needed. Where the wording of a statute is unambiguous there is no occasion for construction to ascertain its meaning. (Nordine v. Illinois Power Co. (1965), 32 Ill. 2d 421, 206 N.E.2d 709; People ex rel. Nelsonv. Olympic Hotel Building Corp. (1950), 405 Ill. 440, 91 N.E.2d 597.) However, by turning to the rules of statutory construction in this instance we can erase what little doubt might possibly exist as to the inapplicability of section 5 \u2014 227 to the case at bar.\nThe primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislature be ascertained and given effect. (People v. Scott (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 353, 312 N.E.2d 596; Certain Taxpayers v. Sheahen (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 75, 256 N.E.2d 758; Tan v. Tan (1972), 3 Ill. App. 3d 671, 279 N.E.2d 486.) In so doing, it has long been held that the courts must look to the plain and ordinary meaning of the language used by the legislature (In re Leyden Fire Protection District (1972), 4 Ill. App. 3d 273, 280 N.E.2d 744; Niles Improvement Association v. J. Emil Anderson & Son, Inc. (1968), 93 Ill. App. 2d 167, 236 N.E.2d 402; Blough v. Ekstrom (1957), 14 Ill. App. 2d 153, 144 N.E.2d 436), in the absence of a statutory definition or other indication of a contrary intent (People v. Young (1968), 100 Ill. App. 2d 20, 241 N.E.2d 587; People v. LaPorte (1960), 28 Ill. App. 2d 139, 171 N.E.2d 95). In this instance the only applicable statutory definition of \u201cfuture entrant\u201d is expressly contained in section 5 \u2014 111. Certainly, this definition reenforces the presumption that the legislature intended that this term be given its ordinary and plain meaning.\nThe fact that section 5 \u2014 227 expressly applies to \u201cfuture entrants entering service after July 11, 1955,\u201d impliedly excludes prior entrants from coverage. Where a statute enumerates persons affected, it must be construed as excluding from its effect all those not expressly mentioned. (McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners (N.D. Ill. 1967), 277 F.Supp. 14, aff\u2019d, 394 U.S. 802 (1969); Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp. (1964), 31 Ill. 2d 69, 199 N.E.2d 769; People v. Criswell (1973), 12 Ill. App. 3d 102, 298 N.E.2d 391.) Thus, without any indicators to the contrary, the presumption is that the legislature intended to exclude from coverage those officers who joined the force prior to July 11, 1955. If a contrary intent had been intended then the inclusion of the final paragraph in section 5 \u2014 227 would be meaningless and serve no purpose. We would be forced t\u00f3 label it mere surplus verbiage, and clearly such a presumption of surplusage is impermissible under the traditional rules of statutory construction. (Hirschfield v. Barrett (1968), 40 Ill. 2d 224, 239 N.E.2d 831, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1062, 21 L. Ed. 2d 706, 89 S. Ct. 716 (1969); People ex rel. Barrett v. Barrett (1964), 31 Ill. 2d 360, 201 N.E.2d 849; Tan v. Tan (1972), 3 Ill. App. 3d 671, 279 N.E.2d 486.) A statute should be construed so that no word, clause, or sentence is rendered meaningless or superfluous. People ex rel. Barrett v. Barrett; Martin v. Orvis Brothers & Co. (1974), 25 Ill. App. 3d 238, 323 N.E.2d 73.\nFinally, another factor supports our conclusion that plaintiffs are not within the purview of section 5 \u2014 227. The original enactment of the provision in 1955 denying policemen\u2019s pension benefits due to a service-connected felony conviction has been retained throughout two separate revisions of the pension acts in 1961 and again in 1963 and as amended in 1969 (P. A. 76-1584, \u00a71, eff. September 29,1969), continues to the present. At no time did the legislature alter the statute to evidence any intent that the felony conviction should apply retroactively to officers who entered service prior to July 11,1955. The original statute was enacted on July 11, 1955 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1955, ch. 24, par. 945a) as an amendment to the then pension act and then first used the term \u201cfuture entrants\u201d in pertinent part. This term has been retained in each subsequent enactment of the related pension acts. Section 1 \u2014 102 of the Illinois Pension Code provides in part: \u201cThe provisions of this Code insofar as they are the same or substantially the same as those of any prior statute, shall be construed as a continuation of such prior statute and not as a new enactment.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. -1975, ch. 108?2, par. 1 \u2014 102.) Therefore, section 5 \u2014 227 is a continuation of its predecessor statutes dating back to July 11, 1955, and is so to be construed, and not a new enactment.\nFurthermore, when the provision was enacted on July 11,1955, its use of the term \u201cfuture entrants\u201d prevented a retroactive application. Not only was the language plain and clear, but it has long been held that a statute is presumptively intended to operate prospectively only. (People ex rel. Manczak v. Carpentier (1954), 3 Ill. 2d 556, 121 N.E.2d 762; Blough v. Ekstrom (1957), 14 Ill. App. 2d 153, 144 N.E.2d 436.) As this court recently stated in Tyrrell v. Municipal Employees Annuity & Benefit Fund (1975), 32 Ill. App. 3d 91, 99, 336 N.E.2d 97, 104:\n\u201cIn accordance with that presumption, the rule has developed that statutes or amendments are to be construed prospectively, unless the legislative intent that they be applied retroactively is clearly apparent from either the express language used or by necessary and unavoidable implication.\u201d\nNo intent for retroactive applications is clearly apparent in the instant case.\nEven if, arguendo, section 5 \u2014 227 could be viewed as a new enactment independently of its predecessor statutes, the only indication in such instance of any type of retroactive intent is that the 1963 enactment of section 5 \u2014 227 of the Pension Code (which repealed and replaced a similar provision in Ill. Rev. Stat. 1961, ch. 24, par. 10 \u2014 7\u20143) specifically dates its effect back to July 11, 1955. Thus, it is clear that to the extent section 5 \u2014 227 has retroactive effect, it is expressly limited by its own provisions. We cannot presume or imply, contrary to an express provision, that section 5 \u2014 227 should also apply retroactively to take effect prior to July 11, 1955.\nIt must be noted that the legislature could have made section 5\u2014 227 applicable to prior entrants. By the time the original provision was enacted in 1955, and when the subsequent acts were enacted, it had been settled as a matter of law in Illinois that such compulsory public employee pension plans were considered to be mere gratuities bestowed upon the employees by a benevolent government. (Raines v. Board of Trustees (1937), 365 Ill. 610, 7 N.E.2d 489; Pecoy v. City of Chicago (1914), 265 Ill. 78, 106 N.E. 435.) The State could have retroactively amended or even repealed such programs as it saw fit. The employees had no vested or contractual rights which would have been abridged by any such actions. Bergin v. Board of Trustees (1964), 31 Ill. 2d 566, 202 N.E.2d 489; Keegan v. Board of Trustees (1952), 412 Ill. 430, 107 N.E.2d 702; Londrigan v. Board of Trustees (1972), 7 Ill. App. 3d 572, 288 N.E.2d 125.) However, it is to be expressly noted that in view of our holding in the instant case we do not consider nor reach the status of such pension plans as contracts under article XIII, section 5, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Board and the order of the Circuit Court of Cook County denying plaintiffs\u2019 applications for annuity are reversed; and the cause is remanded to the Circuit Court for the entry of an order directing the Board to grant the respective applications as of their respective filing dates, and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nDEMPSEY and SIMON, JJ., concur.\nFrom 1962 to 1973 perjury was punishable by the alternative penalties of a fine, imprisonment, or both (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 38, par. 32 \u2014 2(c)), and as such was a misdemeanor. (People v. Novotny (1968), 41 Ill. 2d 401, 403, 244 N.E.2d 182, 184.) Perjury is now a Class 3 felony in Illinois, effective January 1, 1973 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 32\u2014 2(d)).\nArticle XIII, section 5, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 provides\n\u201cMembership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.\u201d", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE MEJDA" } ], "attorneys": [ "James J. Ahern, of Chicago, for appellants.", "William R. Quinlan, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago (Marsile J. Hughes, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ROBERT SHANAHAN et al., Plaintifls-Appellants, v. POLICEMEN\u2019S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 61834\nOpinion filed October 21, 1976.\nJames J. Ahern, of Chicago, for appellants.\nWilliam R. Quinlan, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago (Marsile J. Hughes, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for appellees." }, "file_name": "0543-01", "first_page_order": 573, "last_page_order": 579 }