Defendants appeal from a judgment ordering the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate directing them to grant petitioner a pension.

The undisputed facts are that petitioner was a policeman employed by the city of Long Beach from the first day of August, 1928, and served continuously in such capacity until January 16, 1942, at which time his employment was terminated because of a service-connected disability which he sustained on the 27th day of March, 1937, said injury occurring in the course of and arising out of his employment as such police officer. The salary of petitioner was $200 per month, and at the time of the filing of his petition herein there was $500 due on his pension.

Petitioner bases his right to a pension on the provisions of section 187 of the Charter of the City of Long Beach, subdivision 3 of which reads as follows :

The petitioner received an award from the Industrial Accident Commission of the State of California against the city of Long Beach for compensation, and thereafter, on the 3d day of February, 1942, he filed his application for pension with defendant board, and the same was denied.

*921 The only question presented on this appeal is whether section 188 of the Charter of the City of Long Beach deprives petitioner of his right to receive a pension. The pertinent section reads as follows:

It is the contention of defendant board that because of the provisions of this section plaintiff has deprived himself of the right to receive the benefits of the pension provisions of the charter for the reason that he applied for and accepted the benefits awarded him by the Industrial Accident Commission, and which benefits are commonly referred to as “Workmen’s Compensation.” Appellants in their brief readily concede that if respondent had not applied for and received the benefits of workmen’s compensation, he would be entitled to a pension, but they earnestly urge that having sought and obtained the maximum benefits provided by the Workmen’s Compensation Law, respondent thereby voluntarily placed himself outside of the class for whom the pensions provided by section 187 of the charter were intended, and therefore appellant board correctly denied his application for a pension.

It is conceded that the issues raised on this appeal are identical with those presented in the ease of Larson v. Board, of Police etc. Commissioners, 71 Cal.App.2d 60 [ 162 P.2d 33 ], (hearing denied by the Supreme Court), in which the same claims here urged were decided contrary to the contentions of *922 appellants. We are in accord with the holding of the court and the reasoning supporting the same in the case just cited. Upon the authority of and for the reasons stated in the case of Larson v. Board of Police etc. Commissioners, supra, the judgment from which this appeal was taken is affirmed.

York, P. J., and Doran, J., concurred.