Judgment :- 1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are salaried employees who are holding appointments in different types of establishments educational, industrial, commercial etc. within the local limits of the jurisdiction of different Panchayats within the State. " By the notices impugned in these cases issued to them by the respective Panchayats the petitioners have been called upon to pay profession tax on the basis of their aggregate income inclusive of dearness allowance and other allowances, such as house rent allowance, conveyance allowance etc. The petitioners contend that the expression'agregate income' occurring in S.69(3) of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 should be given a limited interpretation so as to take in only the basic salary of the assessee and as not warranting the inclusion of dearness allowance and other allowances within its scope for the purposes of levy of profession tax. Relying on the fact that the Kerala legislature, while authorising the levy of profession tax by Municipalities and Municipal Corporations by enacting S.110 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1961 and S.113 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961 respectively has incorporated Explanations in those Sections specifically laying down that the expression'aggregate income' occurring in those Sections shall not include dearness or local allowance or allowances for house rent, carriage hire or travelling expenses, the petitioners contend that if S.69(3) of the Panchayats Act and the relevant rules in the Kerala Panchayats (Profession Tax) Rules, 1963 are to be interpreted as 'empowering the Panchayats to levy profession tax on the 'aggregate income' of a person inclusive of the dearness allowance and other allowances received by him, that would constitute arbitrary discrimination violative of the principle of equality enshrined in Art.14 of the Constitution. On this basis the petitioners have prayed that S.69(3) and R.5 of the Kerala Panchayats (Profession Tax) Rules should either be read down in the manner suggested by them or they should be declared by this court to be unconstitutional and void on the ground of infringement of Art.14 of the Constitution in so far as they are found to authorise levy of profession tax on the aggregate income of employees inclusive of dearness allowance and other allowances. 2. 2. The petitioners have relied on the fact that on 18-1-1975 the State Government had issued a letter to the Director of Panchayats clarifying that even though the expression'aggregate income' occurring in S.69 of the Kerala Panchayats Act has not been defined in the said Act, since the said expression has been used in the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1961 also in connection with the levy of profession tax and it has been defined therein as not including dearness or local allowances or allowances for house rent, carriage hire or travelling expenses, the said definition may be applied for the purpose of levy of profession tax in Panchayats also for the sake of uniformity. The Director of Panchayats was requested by the said letter to issue instructions to all Panchayats accordingly. A copy of the said Government letter, has been produced along with O. P. No. 3322 of 1975 and marked as Ext. P3. However, several of the Panchayats appear to have raised objections against the said action of the Government and thereupon the Government by its letter Ext. RI dated 10-10-1972, produced along with the counter-affidavit of the Ist respondent, cancelled the instructions issued in Ext. P3. The petitioners have contended that the action taken by the State Government in issuing Ext. RI was illegal. 3. S.69 (3) of the Kerala Panchayats Act categorically states that the levy of profession tax is to be made on the basis of the 'aggregate income' of a person from all the sources specified in sub-ssction (1). The expression'aggregate income' is, in relation to a salaried employee, comprehensive enough to take in every kind of emoluments received by the employee in connection with his employment which may consist of basic salary, dearness allowance, house rent allowance, carriage allowance etc. which are not payments of a mere casual nature. We do not therefore, find it possible to accept the contention advanced by the petitioners that the expression "aggregate income' should be given a narrow interpretation so as to restrict its scope only to the basic salary drawn by the employee. It will be wholly wrong for the court not to construe the expression used by the legislature in accordance with ordinary grammatical sense and its full normal import where there is nothing in the context to indicate an intention on the part of the legislature to use the word in any restricted or limited sense. It will be wholly wrong for the court not to construe the expression used by the legislature in accordance with ordinary grammatical sense and its full normal import where there is nothing in the context to indicate an intention on the part of the legislature to use the word in any restricted or limited sense. Any such indication being totally lacking in the present case, the expression 'aggregate income' will have to be construed in its ordinary and natural meaning as taking the entire emoluments received by the employee inclusive of dearness allowance and other allowances. 4. We shall now proceed to consider the attack levelled by the petitioners against S.69 (3) of the Panchayats Act on the ground that it is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. We see no merit at all in this contention. The legislature while enacting the Kerala Panchayats Act and empowering, through its provisions, the levy of profession tax by Panchayats had the fullest freedom to decide in what manner the tax should be levied subject, of course, to the restrictions imposed by Art.276 of the Constitution. The mere fact that the fiscal policy subsequently formulated by the legislature, while providing for levy of profession tax by Municipalities and Municipal Corporations in the later enactments, namely, the Kerala Municipalities Act (Act 14 of 1961) and the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act (Act 30 of 1961) happens to be not identical with the principles incorporated in the corresponding provisions of the Panchayats Act will not render the provisions of the Panchayats Act violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. The Panchayats, the Municipalities and the Municipal Corporations are three distinct types of local authorities governed by the provisions of three separate and independent enactments. The legislature was fully competent to determine with reference to the fiscal needs and other relevant circumstances obtaining in relation to the three distinct types of local authorities what policy of taxation would be best suited for each type of local authority. There is nothing in Art.14 of the Constitution which renders it obligatory for the legislature to adopt a uniform policy of taxation in respect of the different types of local authorities which are constituted under separate enactments and which arc manifestly susceptible of a valid classification. There is nothing in Art.14 of the Constitution which renders it obligatory for the legislature to adopt a uniform policy of taxation in respect of the different types of local authorities which are constituted under separate enactments and which arc manifestly susceptible of a valid classification. A reference to the relevant provisions contained in the II Schedule in the three different enactments will show that the fates of levy of profession tax sanctioned in respect of Panchayats are substantially lower in the income slabs upto Rs. 6,000/- in comparison with the corresponding rates sanctioned in respect of Municipalities and Municipal Corporations. Such being the position, it cannot be said that manifest arbitrariness or unreasonableness results from the inclusion of dearness allowance and other allowances in the computation of 'aggregate income' for the purposes of levy of profession tax by Panchayats. Moreover, when the legislature in its wisdom has decided to levy the tax on the basis of the aggregate income inclusive of the said allowances the court will not test the validity of such a provision by applying the touchstone of its own notions of what would be reasonable or fair. The contention put forward by the petitioners is only that Art.14 of the Constitution is violated by reason of the application of the divergent principles for levy of profession tax in respect of persons' carrying on their profession, occupation etc. within the jurisdiction of the different types of local authorities. As already indicated, we are unable to see our way to uphold this plea. 5. When the statute empowers the Panchayat to levy the profession tax on the basis of the aggregate income it was not competent for the State Government to restrict the scope of the provision by issuing a clarification as was given in Ext. P3. The action subsequently taken by the Government as per Ext. R1 to cancel Ext. P3 was, therefore, perfectly right and proper. Hence the challenge by the petitioners against Ext. RI is also devoid of merit. 6. It follows from the foregoing discussion that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in these original petitions. The writ petitions will accordingly stand dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs. Dismissed.