Title: Hensley v. COOLEY
Citation: 254 Ind. 453, 260 N.E.2d 598
Docket Number: 370S61
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: July 29, 1970

254 Ind. 453 (1970)
260 N.E.2d 598
HENSLEY
v.
COOLEY ET AL.
No. 370S61.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed July 29, 1970.
*454 John V. Hampton, Muncie, for Appellant, Edward Dixon, Muncie, for Appellees.
No petition for rehearing filed.
ARTERBURN, J.
This as an action of mandate to compel the reinstatement of appellant as a member of the Police Department of the City of Muncie. He was employed as a probationer in September, 1968. This was done pursuant to the statute, Burns' Ind. Stat. Anno. § 48-6279, which provides for a probationary period of one year. After six and one-half months of service the appellant was called before the Merit Commission of the Police and Fire Departments of the City of Muncie for a hearing on charges of incapacity to serve properly as a policeman. Thereafter he was informed in a letter as follows:
The appellees demurred to the appellant's complaint and the court sustained the demurrer. The appellant having refused to plead over, the court rendered judgment against the appellant. From this decision the appeal is taken.
The sole issue before us is whether the Merit Commission had the authority to make a determination as to appellant's physical ability to serve during the probationary period or whether or not this was the proper function of the Board of Trustees of the Pension Fund. Burns' Ind. Stat. Anno. § 48-6279 provides in part:
and Burns' § 48-6281 provides in part as follows:
It is the contention of appellant that Burns' Ind. Stat. Anno. § 48-6403(2) is however applicable, and it reads as follows:
In 1963 the citizens of the City of Muncie elected to adopt a so-called "Merit Law." The main purpose of this act was to take the appointment and discharge of policemen and firemen from the Board of Public Works and Safety where the tenure was uncertain for political reasons. In its place a "Merit Commission" was provided for in the new optional law. One of the main innovations of the "Merit Law" was that the new policemen and firemen were hired for a probationary period and their performance was subject to scrutiny by the commission for a full year before they became regular policemen or firemen. The reasons for this probationary period are quite obvious. The Merit Commission appears to have been given broad powers in its supervision of policemen and firemen during the probationary period of one year. We feel *457 an interpretation of the "Merit Law" and the Pension and Disability Statute for Policemen and Firemen must give consideration to the legislative objective. It is our judgment and opinion that the Pension and Disability Law is applicable only to the permanent and regular appointees of the Police and Fire Department and not to the probationary members until they have acquired regular status and have met the full one year probationary requirement. It is obvious to us that some physical disabilities and physical incapacities which an appointee has prior to probationary appointment may not reveal themselves until after an appointment on probation, and it would be obviously unjust and unfair to place upon the taxing unit the burden of paying a disability to such a probationer for an incapacity that existed prior to appointment.
Counsel on both sides have failed to present to us any basic authority to guide us in our interpretation and we have been unable likewise to find any authority. We can only be guided by what we think is the objective of the legislature in the enactment.
For the reasons stated, we find the trial court's interpretation of the statute is correct and the judgment should be affirmed.
Hunter, C.J., Jackson, Givan and DeBruler, JJ., concur.
NOTE.  Reported in 260 N.E.2d 598.