Court Opinion

ID: 9737204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:18:56.830885+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:57.207061
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result which the majority has reached in the matter sub judice. However, I write separately to express disagreement with portions of the majority opinion.
Swatara Township (Township) asserted in its motion to quash the appeal that John F. Wydra (Wydra) improperly filed his petition for review under the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. §§ 551-555, 751-754, rather than under Section 645 of The First Class Township Code, Act of June 24, 1931, P.L. 1206, as amended, 53 P.S. § 55645, which provides the procedures for challenging a dismissal of an officer by the township board of commissioners. Under Section 645, an aggrieved officer must first appeal a dismissal to the Township Civil Service Commission. It is not disputed in this case that Wydra timely filed an appeal from his dismissal to the Township Civil Service Commission (Commission) satisfying Section 645 requirements. The parties also agree that although Wydra’s Heart and Lung benefits were terminated without affording him a full due process hearing as mandated under Callahan v, Pennsylvania State Police, 494 Pa. 461, 431 A.2d 946 (1981), the Commission’s adjudication issued subsequent to its hearing satisfied procedural requirements under the Local Agency Law.
Section 645 provides that an aggrieved officer from the decision of the township civil service commission “shall have immediate right of appeal to the court of common pleas.” Further, Section 752 of the Local Agency Law provides:
Any person aggrieved by an adjudication of a local agency who has a direct interest in such adjudication shall have the right to appeal therefrom to the court *176vested with jurisdiction of such appeals by or pursuant to Title 42 (relating to judiciary and judicial procedures).
2 Pa.C.S. § 752. The definition of “local agency” encompasses a local civil service commission. 2 Pa.C.S. § 101. Also, there is no dispute that the Commission’s decision was a valid final adjudication to invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction under the Local Agency Law. Callahan.-
The Township’s motion to quash Wydra’s petition for review does not raise the question of the trial court’s jurisdiction as it did in Lopatic v. Swatara Township, 133 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 431, 575 A.2d 675 (1990). Rather, it is the Township’s contention here that The First Class Township Code and not the Local Agency Law should govern the instant matter. Since the trial court clearly had jurisdiction to review the local agency’s action, its grant of the Township’s motion to quash was improper and consequently must be reversed on that ground alone.
I agree with the majority that depending upon which law controls, substantive rights of the officer will be affected as this Court held in Lopatic. However, I do not believe that for this Court’s disposition of the instant matter, it is appropriate or necessary to review and discuss the merits of Wydra’s appeal to the trial court, particularly with reference to Wydra’s entitlement to backpay for the period prior to the Commission’s adjudication. I would simply reverse the trial court’s grant of the motion to quash and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the applicable law.