Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3352 (2026)

 Pension rights.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 3352.  Pension rights.

(a)  General rule.--Former and retired judges and magisterial district judges shall receive such compensation as shall be provided by or pursuant to statute. No salary, retirement benefit or other compensation shall be paid to any judge or magisterial district judge who is suspended or removed from office under section 18 of Article V or under Article VI of the Constitution of Pennsylvania.

(b)  Definition.--As used in this section "former" means a judge or magisterial district judge serving by appointment or election who vacates his office upon the expiration of his term or who resigns his office.

(July 2, 1993, P.L.395, No.56, eff. Aug. 16, 1993; Nov. 30, 2004, P.L.1618, No.207, eff. 60 days)

 

2004 Amendment.  See section 29 of Act 207 in the appendix to this title for special provisions relating to construction of law.

Special Provisions in Appendix.  See section 408 of Act 5 of 2017 in the appendix to this title for special provisions relating to restoration of service credit or retirement benefits.

Cross References.  Section 3352 is referred to in section 8533 of Title 24 (Education); section 5953 of Title 71 (State Government).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2013–2023 · leading case: Berkhimer v. State Employees' Ret. Bd., 60 A.3d 873 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013).
Berkhimer v. State Employees' Ret. Bd., 60 A.3d 873 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013). · cites it 2× “Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the SERS Appeals Committee denied Berkhimer’s appeal, citing Article V, section 16(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution 3 and section 3352(a) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 3352(a), 4 both of which preclude any justice or judge who is…”
R.C. Cioppa & M. Cioppa v. SERS (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015). · cites it 4× “Cioppa’s rights under his pension were being forfeited pursuant to Article V, Section 16(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution and Section 3352(a) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 3352(a), as result of a July 24, 2012 decision of the Court of Judicial Discipline removing him…”
W.W. Berry, Jr. v. SERB (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “argues that collateral estoppel, equitable estoppel, or laches precludes the forfeiture of Petitioner’s pension under Act 140, based on his criminal conviction, when SERS determined in 2009 that the same underlying misconduct and suspension did not require pension forfeiture…”
Hon. J.H. Roberts v. PSERB (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023). “” 42 Pa. C.S. §3352. In 1959, the General Assembly enacted the predecessor to the Retirement Code and established the Pennsylvania State Employees’ Retirement System (Retirement System), a comprehensive retirement system for state employees, including judges.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3352(a) — 3 cases
Berkhimer v. State Employees' Ret. Bd., 60 A.3d 873 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013). “Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the SERS Appeals Committee denied Berkhimer’s appeal, citing Article V, section 16(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution 3 and section 3352(a) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 3352(a), 4 both of which preclude any justice or judge who is…”
R.C. Cioppa & M. Cioppa v. SERS (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015). “Cioppa’s rights under his pension were being forfeited pursuant to Article V, Section 16(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution and Section 3352(a) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 3352(a), as result of a July 24, 2012 decision of the Court of Judicial Discipline removing him…”
W.W. Berry, Jr. v. SERB (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019). “argues that collateral estoppel, equitable estoppel, or laches precludes the forfeiture of Petitioner’s pension under Act 140, based on his criminal conviction, when SERS determined in 2009 that the same underlying misconduct and suspension did not require pension forfeiture…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.