Wash. Rev. Code » Title 41 · Chapter 41.26
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 41.26.100 (2026)

Allowance on retirement for service

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 2034-S2.SL) ***
A member upon retirement for service shall receive a monthly retirement allowance computed according to his or her completed creditable service credit years of service as follows: Five years but under ten years, one-twelfth of one percent of his or her final average salary for each month of service; ten years but under twenty years, one-twelfth of one and one-half percent of his or her final average salary for each month of service; and twenty years and over one-twelfth of two percent of his or her final average salary for each month of service: PROVIDED, That the recipient of a retirement allowance who shall return to service as a law enforcement officer or firefighter shall be considered to have terminated his or her retirement status and he or she shall immediately become a member of the retirement system with the status of membership he or she had as of the date of retirement. Retirement benefits shall be suspended during the period of his or her return to service and he or she shall make contributions and receive service credit. Such a member shall have the right to again retire at any time and his or her retirement allowance shall be recomputed, and paid, based upon additional service rendered and any change in final average salary.
[ 2006 c 350 s 1; 1991 c 343 s 16; 1974 ex.s. c 120 s 3; 1972 ex.s. c 131 s 7; 1971 ex.s. c 257 s 9; 1970 ex.s. c 6 s 5; 1969 ex.s. c 209 s 10.]

Notes:

Effective date—2006 c 350 s 1: "Section 1 of this act takes effect July 1, 2006." [ 2006 c 350 s 3.]
Findings—Effective dates—1991 c 343: See notes following RCW 41.50.005.
Severability—1974 ex.s. c 120: See note following RCW 41.26.030.
Severability—1972 ex.s. c 131: See note following RCW 41.26.030.
Purpose—Severability—1971 ex.s. c 257: See notes following RCW 41.26.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1974–2013 · leading case: Grabicki v. Dep't of Ret. Sys., 916 P.2d 452 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Grabicki v. Dep't of Ret. Sys., 916 P.2d 452 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “DISCUSSION Grabicki and Olson were entitled to retirement benefits under RCW 41.26.100, based upon the amounts , of their final average salaries.”
Bates v. City of Richland, 112 Wash. App. 919 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “” In Grabicki , LEOPF 1 pensioners sought to have compensation for post-high school education included in retirement benefits calculated under RCW 41.26.100. The applicable provision — like RCW 41.”
Chancellor v. Dep't of Ret. Sys., 103 Wash. App. 336 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “” RCW 41.26.100. Therefore, although the additional monthly salary increase for each person was relatively small, between $200 and $250 per month, the retirement benefit could be substantial.”
Chancellor v. Dept. of Ret. Sys., 12 P.3d 164 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “" RCW 41.26.100. Therefore, although the additional monthly salary increase for each person was relatively small, between $200 and $250 per month, the retirement benefit could be substantial.”
Mulholland v. City of Tacoma, 522 P.2d 1157 (Wash. 1974). “RCW 41.26.100. Thus, if, as the city contends, plaintiff must retire under the provisions of LEFF, he would receive no benefits during his employment by the sheriff’s department.”
Bates v. City of Richland, 51 P.3d 816 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “" In Grabicki , LEOFF I pensioners sought to have compensation for post-high school education included in retirement benefits calculated under RCW 41.26.100. The applicable provision—like RCW 41.”
Adams v. City of Seattle, 173 Wash. App. 398 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “RCW 41.26.100. “Service,” as pertinent here, is defined as follows: “Service” for [LEOFF] plan 1 members, means all periods of employment for an employer as a .”
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.