### October 12, 1973
Honorable Rbb&t~S. ~Caiv&t Comptroller of Public **Accountr** State 

### of Taxae.: Atietin. 

### ‘78774’ ~Op@ibn **No. H-126**  

### Re: WI-+&herHouec Bill 139.

63rd Leg., authbrisei “payment of acciued vacation pay to an employee who reparatee 

### or ie 

## l eparkted from l tate ,&mployment Dear Mr: C’veit:~~ You~have reqdirted **our** &pinion tion&nizig the iighte of employee8 separated 

### from, state. 

### em@loyment tob@paid for accrued vacation time, under House Bill 139, 

### ofithe 63rd Legialature, The General Appropriations **Act** 

### for fiecal~yeare ~1974 and 1975. Your 

### mpecifi’cquestion aeke:

“Can thi~edepartment legally pay’ dn.itiployee for vacation time duly accrued on the date he aeparater 

### from State employment for any unured vacation &titlement undei’*e .current Appropriation Bill?” 

### Exc’~~~‘

f~r’ iirticle;‘ bZSi-8i.~ V.T. C. S., which appiie.e to’vication ti& 

### ac&uxi&itad at tl&+at~‘of a ‘et&e employde. there ii nongeneral law .provLdicg fi$$$?+~.ohtim~ ~foi all state employeer. Article ‘6252-8. V.T.CS, 

### givee to hotirly **etiplo$eer,** continuously emiloytid’by the State for 6 months or **more, whatever**  Mcition 

### rights may be granted to **konthly** 

### employees. Whatever’vacatioti iighte do exiet arc,found’in Article V of the various appropriation acts. Prior to 

### fircal 1973, **there** wae **no** authority 

### for **an** em

### ployee to be paid **a** lump **rum** 

### for accrued vacation bti the termination 

### d hie

“’ employment, and it wao 

## l uggeeted in Attorney~General Opinion M-1075 that 

### "all reeignation#,dirmierale 

## or l eparatione **from** State employment murt be

### The Honorable Robert S. Calvert, page 2,(H-126)

accomplirhed effective on a **date** which will permit the employee 

### to be 

### : paid 

### for hir accumulated vacation. It Although 

### thatopinion and Attorney General Opinion No. 1252 (1972) as 

### well, apeak ofthe right to accrued vacation time as @kernted,” we do **not** 

### believe it ie vemtkdinthe urual sense of thatword. 

### Rather, we are of the opinion that the right to **accrued** vacation time ia analogour to **the** 

### right to retirement benefit@ 

### under one ofthe several plans authorized by the various legirlaturea. Amto theme, the Supreme Court bar raid: “In our opinion, the 

### rule that the right of a 

### penrioner to receive monthly 

### payment0 from the peaiion fund 

### after retirement 

### from service, 

### or after his right to participate in the fund ha8 accrued, ir predicated upon the anticipated 

### corLinuance of existing lawn, 

### and ie auborainate to the right of the 

### Legirlkure to abolish the 

### pension eyetern, or diminish the accrued benefitr 

### ofpensioner6 theretinder. 1~undoubtedly the moundrule to be adopted. ” City of Dallaa v. Trammell, 101S. W. 2d 

### 1009, 1013(Tex. 1937); and see Board of 

### Managers **of** Harris County Hoop. Dief:.v~.Penaicin:Board. 449 

### S. W. td 33 (Tex. 1970). The ,right# of 

### an employee to.be paid for accrued vacation’:timc 

### must depend, 

### therefore, upon the state of the law at the time 

### of hia eeparation from state employment. **Aa** to 

### permom who die 

### while employed by the State, the right* 

### oftheir eatat& 

### are determined~by Article 6252-8a, V.T.CS On the other hand, 

### except insofar aa Article **6813b,** V. T. **C. S.,**  **makes** the 

### salary prov$aions of the bieonial appropriationa acta the general law, 

### there imno over-all rtatute~providing for vacation time for living employees. In the Appropriation Acefor fiscrl’l972 (Senate Bill II, Regular Ses**sion, 62nd**  Legimlature), it was provided in Article V, 07 (p. V-35) that, 

### “No employee of the State shall.be granted terminal annual 

### or vacation leave subsequent 

### to the effective day 

### of the employee’s resignation, dismissal, or separation 

### from State employment. I’ Attorney Gemrrl Opinion



### p. **610**The Honorable 

### Robert S. **Calvert, page**  

### 3(H-126)

M-1075 (1972),found this language to be unambiguous and 

## l uggented, as we have quoted above, ‘that the effective date of the termination be postponed until a time sufficient to include the accruid **vacation.** The Approprtation **Act** for fiscal 1973 (Senate Bill~~l,~3rd ‘Called Seseioa, 62nd Legislature), provided in $7,,~at 

### p. ,V-34, **“ A**  

### State em- ~@lbyee who resigni,’ his’ dirmiraed, **or** separrtes fro& State 

### employment shall 

### be entitled **to** be **paid** 

### for ill vacition time duly accrued. I’ (imphasis added) This proviiion wan the 

### rubject of Attorney 

### General Opinions M-1252, M-1279, M-1280, M-12@ (1972).

.Opinion ‘1252~held that because of the language. “shall be entitle’d fo~~bepaid, ‘Ia State einployec who 

### was separated and had nbt been.Zully paid~for all vacation time to whiclitie _~ .,.was entitled, had tiot been fully paid’for ~a11 iervices ,rendered land was entitled to reCeive :any balance due him’tipdn~termination af his employment. The 63rd Legislature, in~the Genera Appropriations **Act** for fiscal 1974 and 1975, again rewrote 57 of Article V and the pertinent language with Eeference to accrued vacation timg is now. “A Statesemployee 

### who rcsigne, is dis&&sid. or scpa+Btdd from Sta%C. employment shall be en- ,. titled to all vacation 

### time duly.ticcrued. ” There is **n6** provision there or eleewhere in the Abpropriatibn Act tir’thc penerrl’stitutes of the State that an employee. upon 

## l eparation, shall ‘be paid for ,a’ccrued time. In construing thC”imgtiie of Article V. 57. we 

### are not **at** liberty to 

### arsume that the worde “to be paid” were omitted through inadvertance. To the **iontiary.,** we must astnune **that** they were ititentionally omitted and that something in the history **of** the application of the 1973 **Act** caueed tbe Legidatur~ to change -its 

### mind. It is the general **rule** that 

### your office 

### may **not** 

### iraue warrants for an item 

### for which there has been no appropriation. National,Bircuit Co. v. Sclte, 135S. W. 2d 687 (Tex. 1940); State v. Angelins County. 150S. W. td 379 (Tex. 1941); Bullock v. Calvert, 480 S. W. 2d 367 (Tex. 1972). This is 

### true even though an expenditure,;,may be exprer~sly:called for by a general law. See, 

### for imtance. Attorney General Opinion C-579 (1966) hblding tht, **even** though 

### the general law provided for fees for certain witnesses, ln the’ absence of **an** appropriation 

### for thoee **feea,** they could 

### not be paid.

p. 611

s .The 

### Honorible Robert S. Calvert, page 4 

### (H-126)

Amwe construe the current wording 

### of 57, it **now** provides that an employwe is entitled to ?ime, ” not 

### to pay, **and,** in any event, no funds 

### are appropriated to 

### pay a petson who is-no longer an employee for accrued vacation time. We 

### are of the opinion, 

### therefore. that the office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts (except 

### in camemof death) may not legally pay an employee, under the current Appropriations **Act.** 

### for unused vacation time duly accrued 

### on the date he separates from’state employment. 

### Apparently the Legislature intended that vacation time be used for vacations, and’not to supplement income. The change in the ‘law, as we interpret it, should encourage emplbyees to take their vacations ‘aa they accrue. If 

### that ,ic.hot pfictic*l. 

### sqwwd0n ihpul&be effective 

### :b~Crdit&‘,whicb,wiU psrxtiit tht e+ploy.e:e tb,Tm~rirf hts :“; ic&iiiulated vacation. time prior to him separation. SUMMARY There’im neither any general law **nor** any appropriationin the Approprtrtion **Act** for 1974-1975 authorizing the payment of money to a state employee who iemigns, is dimmiased 

### or otherwise **separates** from State employment (except in casem’of death) in lieu 

### of accrued but ynusecj vacation time.

‘APPROV$D:

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman Opinion Committee

p. 612