
    528 A.2d 1074
    Francis J. Catania, et al., Plaintiffs v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State Employees’ Retirement Board and Robert L. Cusma, in his capacity as Secretary of the State Employees’ Retirement System and R. Budd Dwyer, in his capacity as Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Defendants.
    Argued February 25, 1987,
    before President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judges Craig, MacPhail, Doyle, Barry, Colins and Palladino.
    
      
      Richard B. Klein, with him, Henry T. Reath and Judith N. Renzulli, Duane, Morris & Heckscher, for plaintiffs.
    
      Mary Beth Christiansen, Deputy Attorney General, with her, Susan J. Forney, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Andrew S. Gordon, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Chief, Litigation Section, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for defendants.
    July 27, 1987:
   Opinion by

Judge Barry,

Richard B. Klein has filed a petition for enforcement under this Courts original jurisdiction. 42 Pa. C. S. §761. He maintains that the State Employees’ Retirement Board has unlawfully refused to grant him certain benefits he is entitled to receive pursuant to a consent decree entered into by members of the class in the case of Catania v. State Employees’ Retirement Board, 71 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 393, 455 A.2d 1250 (1983).

The Board has filed preliminary objections maintaining that this Court lacks original jurisdiction in this matter because Klein has filed an appeal from the Board’s decision on this exact issue and that appeal is properly within our appellate jurisdiction. 42 Pa. C. S. §763.

Because we have addressed the same issues in Klein’s appeal from the Board’s adjudication, at Klein v. State Employees’ Retirement Board, 108 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 39, 528 A.2d 1071 (1987), which case is dis-positive of the present action, we sustain the Board’s preliminary objections.

Order

Now, July 27, 1987, the preliminary objections of the State Employees’ Retirement Board are sustained and the above action is dismissed.

Judge MacPhail did not participate in the decision in this case.

Judge Doyle concurs in the result only.  