Appeals, Nos. 161 to 164, inclusive, Jan. T., 1950, from judgment of Court of common Pleas of Luzerne County, March T., 1949, No. 250, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. William Oliver et al. v. City of Wilkes-Barre et al. Judgment affirmed.
Conrad A. Falvello, with him Frank P. Lenahan, Reynold J. Kosek and Rocco C. Falvello, for appellants.
Howard E. Kennedy, for appellees.
Before Drew, C.j., Stern, Stearne, Jones and Bell, JJ.
This action in mandamus was brought against the City of Wilkes-Barre, its Mayor and the members of City Council, to compel a reinstatement of plaintiffs as members of its police force. Judgment was entered for defendants on the pleadings and this appeal followed.
On January 20, 1948, the City Council of the City of Wilkes-Barre passed a resolution placing plaintiffs William Oliver, Faust Iorio, John A. Gazey and Edward J. Lenahan on the police force retirement list, effective as of February 1, 1948. Plaintiffs all had served the minimum number of years required by a city ordinance to make them eligible for retirement and did not object to defendants' action until February 1, 1949 when they filed this complaint. In the interim they received pension checks, which they cashed, and defendants employed and trained new recruits to fill the vacancies occasioned by their retirement.
In reply to plaintiff's contention that defendants did not have authority to retire them without a hearing and a finding that they were unfit for police duties, defendants argued that the necessary authorization was contained in Section 4302 of The Third Class City Law, Act of June 23, 1931, P.L. 932. Whether that section conferred such a power on defendants need not be determined here. For defendants further averred that plaintiffs were guilty of laches in not instituting suit at an earlier date and were properly sustained in this contention by the court below which entered judgment accordingly on the pleadings.
In Schearer v. Reading, 346 Pa. 27, 28 A.2d 790, the problem raised in the instant case was discussed and, at page 31, this Court quoted from Arant v. Lane, 249 U.S. 367, 372, with approval, language which expressed the basis for the allowance of this equitable defense in an action of mandamus brought by a former public official seeking reinstatement to office.*fn1 In deciding against plaintiffs, the learned judge in the court below held that
whether from disregard of the law by his superior or from mistake as to the facts of his case, obvious considerations of public policy make it of first importance that he should promptly take the action requisite to effectively assert his rights, to the end that if his contention be justified the government service may be disturbed as little as possible and that two salaries shall not be paid for a single service.
"'Under circumstances which rendered his return to the service impossible, except under the order of a court, the relator did nothing to effectively assert his claim for reinstatement to office for almost two years. Such a long delay must necessarily result in changes in the branch of the service to which he was attached and in such an accumulation of unearned salary that, when unexplained, the manifest inequity which would result from reinstating him, renders the ...