In what circumstances will the Chief Fire Officer interpret the term "his duty" in the City Charter 1?

[18 Cal.App.3d 278] Barber first contends that the Chief's interpretation of the term 'his duty' in section 171.1.3 of the charter ¹ to mean Any and all duties that are performed by firemen appears unreasonable and arbitrary in view of the evidence that some men in the fire department were assigned to permanent limited duty positions. We see merit in this contention. As there is no judicial or legal construction of the term as used in the city charter provisions, the question is one of first impression. The courts will ordinarily follow a contemporaneous administrative construction of a statute which is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation but such a construction cannot be followed where it is clearly erroneous (Hoyt v. Board of Civil Service Commrs., 21 Cal.2d 399, 407, 132 P.2d 804). We think that in view of the well recognized public policy favoring the employment and utilization of physically handicapped persons (Welf. & Inst.Code, 10650), the Chief's interpretation here was too broad. Under the circumstances, where there were permanent light duty assignments, a narrower construction declaring 'his duty' in section 171.1.3 to refer to Duties required to be performed in a given permanent assignment within the department would be more reasonable.