Whether she likes it or not, a state Superior Court judge must take an $11,000 pay raise foisted upon her nearly 18 months ago by the state Legislature.

Judge Joan Orie Melvin filed a petition against the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts and the acting state treasurer. In it, she sought an injunction that would prohibit them from paying her the increased salary, which was implemented as part of a raise package for legislators and the judiciary in a middle-of-the-night vote in July 2005.

Eventually, citizen outcry resulted in the Legislature revoking its portion of the raise. But state judges got to keep their money because the Supreme Court ruled, in Stilp v. Commonwealth, that judicial salaries can't be reduced in the middle of a term unless all other salaried state employees have their pay cut, too.

On Thursday, Commonwealth Court ruled that Judge Melvin, who is up for a retention vote this November, is required to take the raise, which increased her salary from $150,903 to $162,100.

In his nine-page opinion, Judge James Gardner Colins spoke harshly of Judge Melvin's actions.

"Petitioner may proselytize ad infinitum against the level of judicial salaries during her retention campaign," he wrote. "However as a judge she should not be filing specious complaints in judicial forums."

He went on to say that she is free to donate all of her pay raise to the charity of her choice.

"However as a judicial officer she is not free to ignore the Pennsylvania Constitution so as to create a two-tiered system of judicial compensation."

Judge Melvin based her petition, in part, on a 1904 Supreme Court decision that said: "The judiciary might voluntarily, if the needs of the government required it, surrender a portion of their fixed salaries, but no portion thereof could be wrested from them by the Legislature."

Judge Colins found that that opinion refers to the "judiciary" as a whole, and is not applicable to her as an individual.

Further, he wrote that Judge Melvin "has chosen to completely ignore the entire opinion in Stilp which is the law of the Commonwealth ... despite her having taken an oath to 'support, obey and defend the Constitution of the Commonwealth.' "

He cited a 1989 Supreme Court decision that "there cannot be 'different adequate compensation for different members of the same court.' "

The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts objected to Judge Melvin's petition, claiming that its job is to pay salaries to judges, not to alter them.

Her attorney, Jack Orie, did not return a phone call seeking comment.