Appeal, No. 104, March T., 1957, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, April T., 1955, No. 1892, in case of Charles F. Jordan v. John J. Kane et al. Judgment affirmed.
Leonard Boreman, with him Solis Horwitz and Walter A. Koegler, for appellant.
Joseph H. Ridge, Assistant County Solicitor, with him Nathaniel K. Beck, County Solicitor and John F. Murphy, Assistant County Solicitor, for appellees.
Before Jones, C.j., Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno, Arnold, Jones and Cohen, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE COHEN
Charles F. Jordan was an Allegheny County patrolman who, because of an infirmity arising out of the line of duty, applied for, and was assigned to, a position as inside policeman in accordance with the Act of July 28, 1953, P.L. 723, § 1518(h). This section of the Act provided, inter alia, that in the event, "an outside policeman is found to be physically unfit to perform such duties due to an infirmity resulting from the performance of his duties as a policeman, ... [he] shall be assigned to inside work as building policeman
or other special duties without any diminution in pay." (Emphasis supplied).
After Jordan had begun his new duties, the defendant commissioners refused to pay him the salary of an outside policeman on the ground that his infirmity was not a service connected disability. Jordan thereupon instituted this action in mandamus to compel the payment of the disputed compensation. While the case was pending in the court below, the amendatory Act of July 27, 1955, P.L. 284, 16 P.S. § 4518 became effective. This amendment deleted the words "without any diminution in pay" and inserted in lieu thereof, "and be paid such compensation as shall be fixed by the salary board for building policemen."
The court held that the amendatory Act of 1955 was applicable to Jordan. Consequently, the court concluded that the Salary Board had validly adjusted Jordan's salary when it paid him the regular wage of an inside policeman. Jordan appeals maintaining that contrary to the general rules of statutory construction the Amendatory Act was construed and applied retroactively to him.
A discussion on the question of whether the 1955 Act is retroactive or prospective is unnecessary since this Act was not applied retroactively to the appellant. The court below held that Jordan was entitled to the salary of an outside policeman from the date of his transfer until the effective date of the amendment.
Further, we are of the opinion that none of Jordan's rights were infringed upon by the legislation authorizing ...