OLIVER F. BUSBY, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appellant was not entitled to retirement annuity benefits because his voluntary resignation terminated his employee status before meeting the Act's requirements.
Appellant, employed by the government, resigned voluntarily after twenty years of service. A deduction was made from his salary under the Civil Servic…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Voluntary Resignation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, after exhausting all administrative remedies, sought a District Court’s declaratory judgment that he is entitled to accumulated and to future retirement annuity benefits. Judgment was entered for the Government.
The Civil Service Retirement Act of 1920, 41 Stat. 614, 5 U.S.C.A. § 691 et seq. became effective while appellant was employed in the classified Civil Service. A deduction of $8.14 was made from appellant’s basic salary to cover the period between August 1, 1920 and September 20, 1920,. at which latter date appellant voluntarily resigned his position after some twenty years of Government employment. The Act made provision for his recovery of the amount deducted but he neither applied for nor received a refund. Since his resignation, appellant has held no Government position.
Appellant in 1955 applied for retirement annuity benefits. The Civil Service Commission ruled that his voluntary resignation in 1920 had terminated his status as an “employee,” and since the Act made no provision for retirement benefits for former employees who resigned before meeting the requirements of Section 1 of the Act, he was not entitled to a retirement annuity. We are satisfied that neither the 1920 Act nor any later amendment afforded retirement benefit status to this appellant.
Affirmed.