This is a bill in equity brought in the Superior Court for a declaratory decree under G. L. (Ter. *60 Ed.) c. 231A, § 1, inserted by St. 1945, c. 582, § 1, which so far as pertinent.reads as follows: “The supreme judicial court, the superior court, the land court and the probate courts, within their respective jurisdictions, may on appropriаte proceedings make binding declarations of right, duty, status and other legal relations sought thereby, either before or after a breach or violation thereof has occurred in any case in which an actual controversy has arisen and is specifically set forth in the pleadings and whether any consequential judgment or relief is or could be claimed at law or in equity or not . . ..”
The plaintiffs are all retired members of the police or the fire department of the city of Springfield, hereinafter called the city, with annual pensions as provided by G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 32, § 80 or § 83, as аmended.
The suit was submitted to a judge as a case stated and the judge after hearing dismissed the bill. The plaintiffs appealed. No statement of rеasons for the refusal of a declaratory decree appeared in the record.
An actual controversy had arisen betwеen the plaintiffs and the city which is specifically set out in the pleadings and in the case stated. On January 3, 1949, the city reduced payment of the amount of pensions originally granted the plaintiffs and continued to do so until July 31, 1950. It purported to act under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 32, § 86, as appearing in St. 1946, c. 576, § 7, 1 and St. 1949, c. 562, 2 *61 which was then in effect. Chapter 32, § 86, as amended, was repealed by St. 1950, c. 395. 1
The question for determination is whether or not c. 32, § 86, as amended, which was in effeсt during the period from January 3, 1949, to July 31, 1950, authorized the action of the city. The case stated admitted that between these dates the plaintiffs were engaged in gainful occupations and that the actual earnings of each plaintiff exceeded the amounts referred to in c. 32, § 86, as amended.
The plaintiffs contend that the then c. 32, § 86, as amended, was not applicable to pensions granted them prior to its effective dаtes for two reasons, first, that this statute was prospective in its operation, and, second, that the rights of the plaintiffs were established by G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 32, § 13 (1) (а), as appearing in St. 1945, c. 658, § l. 2
We are of opinion that the contentions of the plaintiffs cannot be sustained. Chapter 32, § 86, as amended, stated in clear and unequivocal language that its provisions should apply to “any police officer or fireman who has been retired under sеctions eighty to eighty-five E, inclusive, or any of them,” and must be interpreted accordingly. These pensions were noncontributory and were mere grаtuities granted because of services rendered. No contractual obligations were created between the plaintiffs and the city by such pensions. They were only expectancies which the Legislature could terminate or reduce at will. In
Coakley
v.
Attorney General,
We agree with the general principle that statutes affecting substantive rights are to be construed as operating prospectively unless legislative intention to- the contrary is clearly expressed. .
Greenaway’s Case,
As to the second contention of the plaintiffs we are of opinion that the general provisions of § 13 (1) (a) of c. 32-do not control the specific provisions of c. 32, § 86, as amended. When the Legislature in the еxercise of its authority in 1946 and in 1949 enacted c. 32, § 86, as amended, it obliterated the effect of § 13 (1) (a). As we have intimated, what the Legislature could givе it could take away.
What we have said disposes of this, suit on the merits. The action of the city was warranted.
There remains but one thing more. This was a bill for a declaratory decree. It should not have been dismissed. It should have been disposed of by the entry of a decree adjudicating thе rights of the parties as prayed for.
It follows therefore that the decree is reversed and a
*63
new decree is to be entered declaring that the action of the city in reducing the pensions of thе plaintiffs was valid.
Booker
v.
Woburn,
So ordered.
Notes
“If any police officer who has been retired under section sixty-nine, or any police officer or fireman who has beеn retired under sections eighty to eighty-five E, inclusive, or any of them, shall be engaged in any gainful occupation from which the actual or potential earnings exceeds the difference between the pension received by him and the annual rate of his regular compensation in effect on the date of his retirement, the pension shall be so reduced that the total amount of the pension and such extra earnings shall not exceed the amount of his regular compensation prior to his retirement.”
"If any police officer who has been retired under section sixty-nine, or any police officer or fireman who has been retired under sections eighty to eighty-five E, inclusive, or any of them, shall be engaged in any gainful occupation from which the actual or potential earnings exceeds the difference between the pension received by him and the current annual rate of regular compensation payable by the political unit by which he was retired to persons holding, thе grade which was held by him on the date of his retirement, the pension shall be so reduced that the total amount of the pension and such extra еarnings shall not exceed the amount of said regular compensation.”
“Section 86 of chapter 32 of the General Laws, as most recеntly amended by chapter 562 of the acts of 1949, is hereby repealed” (approved May 2, 1950, effective ninety days thereafter).
“Payments under аny annuity, pension or retirement allowance provided for under this chapter and in effect on December thirty-first, nineteen hundred and forty-five, shаll continue to be due and payable in the same amounts, under the same conditions and at the same intervals of time as were in effect on such date.”