Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County in the case of Harry Wallaesa, Retired Chief of Police v. Police Pension Commission of the Borough of Tamaqua and The Borough of Tamaqua, No. S-282-1982.
Anthony C. Busillo, II, Mancke, Lightman & Wagner, for appellant.
Jeffrey P. Bowe, Bowe, Lisella and Bowe, for appellees.
Judges Doyle and Barry, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Kalish.
[ 102 Pa. Commw. Page 239]
Appellant, Harry Wallaesa, appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County which upheld a decision of appellees, Police Pension Commission of the Borough of Tamaqua and the Borough of Tamaqua (Borough), which denied the inclusion of various forms of unaccumulated leave in Wallaesa's pension. We affirm the trial court.
Wallaesa retired as a police chief. His pension benefits were calculated as a fraction of his average monthly salary, excluding unused sick leave, personal days, and vacation days.
Wallaesa contends that his pension benefits should be calculated on his average salary plus his unused sick leave, personal, and vacation days (32 1/2 days).
Section 5 of the Police Pension Fund Act, Act of May 29, 1956, P.L. (1955) 1804, as amended, 53 P.S. § 771, provides that the retiree shall receive from the Pension Fund a sum equal to one-half of the average monthly salary. The Borough's ordinance is in accordance with this Act.
The question is whether the term "salary" as received by the police chief encompassed vacation days
[ 102 Pa. Commw. Page 240]
and unused sick and personal days, during the designated period of time immediately prior to retirement.
In Borough of Beaver v. Liston, 76 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 619, 464 A.2d 679 (1983), this Court interpreted the word "salary," as used for pension purposes, to be a fixed amount paid at periodic intervals, so that overtime pay due to a police officer ...