Case Name: Jordan, Appellant, v. Kane
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1957-04-26
Citations: 389 Pa. 1
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 104
Parties: Jordan, Appellant, v. Kane.
Judges: Before Jones, C. J., Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno, Arnold, Jones and Cohen, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 389
Pages: 1–8

Head Matter:
Jordan, Appellant, v. Kane.
April 26, 1957:
Argued March 21, 1957.
Before Jones, C. J., Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno, Arnold, Jones and Cohen, JJ.
Leonard Boreman, with him Solis Horwitz and Walter A. Koegler, for appellant.
Joseph II. Ridge, Assistant County Solicitor, with him Nathaniel K. Bede, County Solicitor and John F. Murphy, Assistant County Solicitor, for appellees.

Opinion:
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 the reduction of his salary.
The appellant has no constitutional claim to the continuation of his existing rate of remuneration. Although Article 3, Section 13 of The Pennsylvania Constitution provides that "No law shall extend the term of any public Officer, or increase or diminish his salary or emoluments, after his election or appointment." we have explicitly held that policemen do not have the status of public officers within the meaning of this provision. Zeloyle v. Bettor, 371 Pa. 546, 552, 91 A. 2d 901 (1952).
Neither has the appellant a vested contractual right in his rate of compensation. There is no question of the "power of legislative bodies to amend statutorily created rights affecting the conditions of public employment . . . although changes made will affect present . . . employes. . . ." Philadelphia Civil Service Commission v. Eckles, 376 Pa. 421, 426, 103 A. 2d 761 (1954).
Appellant, in effect, seeks a decision that the salary rights and conditions of employment of each government employe are unshakably determined by the most favorable law in effect during his employment. Were we so to hold, the resulting patchwork quilt of salary distinctions, preventing uniform treatment of all employees in a given classification, would cause inequities, impair morale, curtail experimentation in wage and salary programming, and hence, impede the effective administration of government.
Judgment affirmed.