Court Opinion

ID: 9644741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:03:36.774605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:17.640992
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen:
The road blocks that the Governor, the Budget Secretary and the Executive Board of the Commonwealth have placed before appellant’s effort to obtain a judicial evaluation of their acts in removing appellant from the classified service of the Commonwealth should merit the grant of equitable relief. To me it seems most oppressive that appellant should be denied the statutory relief provided by the Civil Service Act to question the determination that his employment was in the unclassified service and to question Ms summary removal on instructions received from the Governor’s personal secretary.
The Civil Service Act of 1963 was passed to strengthen and extend civil service employment in the Commonwealth, and the legislature did not contemplate that the Act would be perverted to provide an instrumentality for the destruction of the civil service status of employees who were classified before the passage of the Act. The Civil Service Commission, on two occasions, refused to permit appellant to be heard on the theory that he was no longer protected by the Civil Service Act. We have recently held that mandamus will lie to compel action by an official where his refusal to act in the requested manner stems from his erroneous interpretation of the law, Volunteer Firemen’s Relief Asso. v. Minehart, 415 Pa. 305, 203 A. 2d 476 (1964). Hence, because an action at law is readily available to appellant I reluctantly concur.
Mr. Justice Eagen joins in this concurring opinion.