York Paid Firemen's Pension Fund Board v. Orendorff

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

York Paid Firemen's Pension Fund Board v. Orendorff

419 A.2d 232, 53 Pa. Commw. 629, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1724

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 9, 1980

DocketAppeal, No. 1566 C.D. 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 419 A.2d 232 (York Paid Firemen's Pension Fund Board v. Orendorff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

York Paid Firemen's Pension Fund Board v. Orendorff, 419 A.2d 232, 53 Pa. Commw. 629, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1724 (Pa. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Mencer,

The sole issue in this appeal by Frederick J. Orendorff (claimant) is whether the York Paid Firemen’s Pension Fund Board (Board) should include longevity increments¹ paid to a fireman in computing his retirement pension. Section 6 of York City Ordinance 16-1947, as amended, York Administrative Code §171.-06 (1947), provides that claimant shall receive a pension equal to “one-half the yearly salary of such member at the time of his retirement.” “Salary” is not defined in the ordinance, and we are asked to determine the dimensions of that term.²

Claimant, relying on Newhouse v. Board of Pensions, 33 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 81, 380 A.2d 1315 (1977); Kelly v. Loveland, 141 Pa. Superior Ct. 455, 15 A.2d 411 (1940); and Christ v. Berks City Retirement Board, 36 Berks 169 (1943), argues that the term “salary” includes the entire compensation paid to him for his services rendered to the fire department. Although we agree that, in the abstract, “salary” is [631]*631broad enough to encompass longevity increments, nevertheless, in the pension area,

[t]he connotation to be placed upon the term ‘salary’ must depend upon the sense in which it is used and the purpose sought to be achieved. Here we are concerned with placing an interpretation upon it which ‘harmonizes with the spirit and purpose of the retirement acts’: Kane v. Policemen’s Fund et al., 336 Pa. 540, 546, 9 A.2d 739, 742.

Kelly v. Loveland, supra at 462, 15 A.2d at 415.

With this in mind, we note that Section 4 of the ordinance, York Administrative Code §171.04, provides that each member must contribute to the fund “the amount of four percent of the salary of each paid member of the Fire Department . . . .” In Rockwell v. York County Retirement Board, 405 Pa. 406, 415 & n. 12, 175 A.2d 831, 836 & n. 12 (1961), our Supreme Court concluded that the retirement benefit of a court stenographer was to be computed on the basis of salary plus folio and transcript fees, in part because “[Contribution to the system by a court stenographer must be calculated on the salary plus folio and transcript fees.” (Emphasis added.) Likewise, here, we believe that it would be inconsistent, inequitable, and contrary to the purpose of the pension law for claimant to receive a pension computed on the basis of his salary plus longevity increments, while contributing to the system solely on the basis of his salary.³

Unfortunately, we are unable to determine from this record how contributions to the fund are made. Therefore, we must remand this matter to the court below, with the instruction that, if claimant has contributed to the fund on the basis of his salary plus [632]*632longevity increments, then he is entitled to receive a pension computed on the same basis. If, however, he has contributed on the basis of his salary without longevity increments, then he would be entitled to a pension only on that basis.

Order vacated and record remanded.

Order

And Now, this 9th day of September, 1980, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County in the above captioned matter, dated July 6, 1979 and October 31, 1979, is hereby vacated, and the record is hereby remanded to said court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Judge Mencer,

The sole issue in this appeal by Frederick J. Orendorff (claimant) is whether the York Paid Firemen’s Pension Fund Board (Board) should include longevity increments¹ paid to a fireman in computing his retirement pension. Section 6 of York City Ordinance 16-1947, as amended, York Administrative Code §171.-06 (1947), provides that claimant shall receive a pension equal to “one-half the yearly salary of such member at the time of his retirement.” “Salary” is not defined in the ordinance, and we are asked to determine the dimensions of that term.²

Claimant, relying on Newhouse v. Board of Pensions, 33 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 81, 380 A.2d 1315 (1977); Kelly v. Loveland, 141 Pa. Superior Ct. 455, 15 A.2d 411 (1940); and Christ v. Berks City Retirement Board, 36 Berks 169 (1943), argues that the term “salary” includes the entire compensation paid to him for his services rendered to the fire department. Although we agree that, in the abstract, “salary” is [631]*631broad enough to encompass longevity increments, nevertheless, in the pension area,

[t]he connotation to be placed upon the term ‘salary’ must depend upon the sense in which it is used and the purpose sought to be achieved. Here we are concerned with placing an interpretation upon it which ‘harmonizes with the spirit and purpose of the retirement acts’: Kane v. Policemen’s Fund et al., 336 Pa. 540, 546, 9 A.2d 739, 742.

Kelly v. Loveland, supra at 462, 15 A.2d at 415.

With this in mind, we note that Section 4 of the ordinance, York Administrative Code §171.04, provides that each member must contribute to the fund “the amount of four percent of the salary of each paid member of the Fire Department . . . .” In Rockwell v. York County Retirement Board, 405 Pa. 406, 415 & n. 12, 175 A.2d 831, 836 & n. 12 (1961), our Supreme Court concluded that the retirement benefit of a court stenographer was to be computed on the basis of salary plus folio and transcript fees, in part because “[Contribution to the system by a court stenographer must be calculated on the salary plus folio and transcript fees.” (Emphasis added.) Likewise, here, we believe that it would be inconsistent, inequitable, and contrary to the purpose of the pension law for claimant to receive a pension computed on the basis of his salary plus longevity increments, while contributing to the system solely on the basis of his salary.³

Unfortunately, we are unable to determine from this record how contributions to the fund are made. Therefore, we must remand this matter to the court below, with the instruction that, if claimant has contributed to the fund on the basis of his salary plus [632]*632longevity increments, then he is entitled to receive a pension computed on the same basis. If, however, he has contributed on the basis of his salary without longevity increments, then he would be entitled to a pension only on that basis.

Order vacated and record remanded.

Order

And Now, this 9th day of September, 1980, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County in the above captioned matter, dated July 6, 1979 and October 31, 1979, is hereby vacated, and the record is hereby remanded to said court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

419 A.2d 232, 53 Pa. Commw. 629, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/york-paid-firemens-pension-fund-board-v-orendorff-pacommwct-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack