of Mrs. Ayers and those claiming through her, such as Appellant, are contractual in nature, this case does not involve an ordinary insurance contract. PSERS was created and is controlled by statute. See Public School Employees Retirement System Act (“PSERS Act”), Ga. L. 1969, p. 998, §§ 1-26 (codified as amendedatOCGA §§ 47-4-lto47-4-121). Asaresult,thePSERSAct itself supplied the terms of the written contract between PSERS and Mrs. Ayers. S eeAlverson v. Employees’ Retirement System ofGa., 272 Ga. App. 389, 392 (613 SE2d 119) (2005) (“[T]he plaintiffs are parties to a written contract established by the Code provisions in effect when they performed services and contributed toward their retirement benefits.”). See also Strickland v. City of Albany, 270 Ga. 31, 31 (504 SE2d 666) (1998) (<HOLDING>). PSERS has no authority to vary the terms of
holding that the citys pension plan created by the governing ordinances formed a contract between the city and its employees holding that the defendant withheld pension benefits in breach of the plan holding that a group benefits policy purchased by the city for employees was a governmental plan even though the plan was offered and administered by a private insurer holding that an employees protected interest in a pension vested before he or she became eligible to collect the pension holding that citys enforcement of the entire state penal code would not constitute a city policy because the city was required to follow state law