Is a pensioner entitled to both a cost-of-living and a proportional share of the fluctuating salary of a judge occupying the office formerly occupied by a retired or deceased judge?

7 We note that in Betts this court held the pensioner was entitled to both the benefit of a basic retirement allowance calculated as a proportionate part of the fluctuating salary of the incumbent in the office occupied by the pensioner and, additionally, a cost-of-living adjustment of the basic allowance. We stated then that the effect of the holding "is that petitioner thereby receives the benefit of a double increment of increase, a troubling result." (Betts v. Board of Administration, supra, 21 Cal.3d 859, 867, 148 Cal.Rptr. 158, 163, 582 P.2d 614, 619.) The net effect of our holding in the instant case is to allow a judicial pensioner but one increment of increase, that being the increment of prorata increase in the salary of the judge occupying the office formerly occupied by the retired or deceased judge. While that salary fluctuates with cost-of-living increases, the judicial pensioner's proportionate share is his basic retirement allowance and it is not increased by any cost-of-living factor.